Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS)
BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 January 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Rail Services (Edinburgh and the Borders)

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the future of rail services from Edinburgh and the borders to London and the continent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend and I meet senior management of British Rail from time to time. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

Mr. Beith: If Mr. Richard Branson—or anyone else—is allowed to take over the east coast main line service, what guarantee is there that passengers from the borders will continue to have frequent train services from Berwick and other intermediate stations? With or without Richard Branson, when will there be through services to France, through the channel tunnel, from Edinburgh and the borders?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is 1995. I understand that British Rail intends to operate a day-time service from Edinburgh down the east coast main line and a night-time service from Glasgow down the west coast main line to Paris and Brussels. Day-time and night-time through services are expected to start in 1995, but, for

people intending to use the route earlier, there will, of course, be an option of transferring quickly in London to another route. Freight services will be in use as soon as the channel tunnel opens. The reason for the delay to 1995 is that many complex issues need to be resolved.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister read the remarks of Lords Whitelaw and Ridley in the other place arguing strongly against any privatisation of British Rail? As one of them is one of the greatest advocates of privatisation, will the Government take account of those remarks? Train services in the borders, in Ayrshire and in other rural areas are bound to suffer if privatisation goes ahead. Clearly, private operators will be after only the lucrative routes, and rural areas, as usual, will be the ones to suffer. Will the Government think again on the issue?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have given a clear commitment to preserving the current national network and continuing to provide subsidy, when it is needed, for loss-making services that are socially necessary. On the privatisation of international routes, the Government's view is that international services will benefit from private sector expertise, and specific options for transferring international services to the private sector are under discussion within British Rail and the Government. I cannot yet say when we shall be in a position to publish specific proposals.

Independence

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received for Scottish independence.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Since the general election I have received 22 representations in favour of independence for Scotland. I have received hundreds in support of the maintenance of the Union.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish people live in Basildon? They are proud to be Scottish and pleased to live in Basildon. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the overwhelming majority of them are totally opposed to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and does he agree with them?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland are also resistant to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The only political party offering the break-up of the United Kingdom saw its representation in the House reduced by 40 per cent. at the general election, when I was delighted to see my hon. Friend re-elected as the Member for Basildon.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that although the democratic opposition to Tory Government in Scotland may be divided on the issue of indpendence, it is absolutely united behind the principle that Scotland should decide for itself what its views on independence are? Who does the Secretary of State think is more representative of Scottish opinion—the 25,000 Scots from every part of the country who gathered in Edinburgh last Saturday to demand a multi-option referendum, or the ragbag of no-hopers on the Conservative Back Benches?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman wants to see a ragbag, he should look at the range of organisations with different opinions that marched in the demonstration on Saturday. They could not even reach the end of the march without disagreeing and falling out among themselves.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that Scotland's greatest benefit is that it is the only country on earth which does not have the misfortune to have a Government? However, Scotland has the good fortune to have control over its affairs and its heritage—for which my right hon. Friend is so appreciated. Will he ensure that when the English work out whether they can buy tea or shortbread on Sundays, under their stupid Shops Act 1950, section 4 of the 1950 Act is never applied to Scotland and that our law remains as free as it is?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the distinctive features of legislation affecting Scotland, which are safeguarded by arrangements in this Parliament. Not for the first time, Scotland is giving examples from which England can benefit.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that while 78 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected independence on 9 April, 75 per cent. were not satisfied with the status quo and wanted a Scottish Parliament? Given that the Secretary of State, in his speech to the Monday club at the Conservative party conference, accepted the nationhood of Scotland, how does he envisage Scotland being able to implement the democratic wish of the Scottish people if he and his colleagues in Government refuse to accept that wish?

Mr. Lang: The vast majority of people voting in the last general election supported parties which are nominally committed to the maintenance of the Union of the United Kingdom. Within that United Kingdom and its Parliament, it is possible to cater for the distinctive needs of the different parts of the Union. That is what already happens in Parliament, and that is what we are considering to find out whether further changes can be made to improve arrangements for Scottish business at Westminster.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What representations has my right hon. Friend received from the dockyard workers at Rosyth about an independent Scotland? If that were to come about, what effect do they think that it would have on their jobs?

Mr. Lang: I have had no such representations, but, in that matter as in so many others, Scotland's benefits derive to a large extent from our membership of this United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State must be aware, even if Basildon man is not, that the latest signs are that independence is the leading option and that it is twice as popular as his option—the status quo. In the light of Saturday's march and rally, does the Secretary of State still believe what he has told us for the past six months—that no one is interested in the Scottish question? On Saturday, 25,000 people demonstrated for freedom and democracy in the streets of our capital city. When will he take stock of that? If the governor-general were to announce a rally in March in favour of the discredited Union, would any Scot bother to turn up—or would he have to bus them in from Basildon?

Mr. Lang: I have already pointed out that the march last Saturday contained elements that conflict directly with each other in their views of the future of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman asks who is interested in the Scottish question. I am interested in it. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are taking stock. That is why we are considering proposals to change the arrangements whereby Scottish business is handled and to find other ways in which Scottish interests can be better represented within this Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Canavan: When did the Scottish Tory party manage to get 25,000 Scots marching for anything? The Secretary of State is trying to derive some comfort from the fact that there are honest differences of opinion among the people of Scotland on the exact powers that a Scottish Parliament should have. Why is he so afraid to hold a referendum and let the people decide? Is it because he knows that the overwhelming majority would reject the status quo?

Mr. Lang: The Scottish Conservative party is pursuing its objectives through democratic and parliamentary means, and it was the only party in Scotland to increase both its vote and its share of the seats at the last general election.

Local Government

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the conduct of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The conduct of local authority business in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain was comprehensively examined by the Widdecombe committee, and the Government made a number of changes in the law in the light of its report. I believe that Scottish authorities generally observe high standards in the conduct of their business, but there are lapses from time to time.

Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish people in my constituency have been shocked to learn that 22 relatives of Labour councillors are employed by Monklands district council? [Interruption.] Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, of those 22 relatives, three are employed in the housing department, the wife of the director of housing is employed in the leisure centre—[Interruption.] and the view of the tenants and people of Coatbridge and Airdrie—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout down other hon. Members. We have freedom of speech here. There will be opportunities for rebuttal. Will the hon. Gentleman move rapidly to his question?

Mr. Shaw: My question relates to the fact that of 22 wives, sons and daughters of Labour councillors employed by Monklands district council, three are employed in the housing department, the wife of the director of housing is employed in the leisure centre—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now directing the hon. Gentleman to come to his question. I want a question now.

Mr. Shaw: I hoped that my right hon. Friend would have the opportunity to follow the whole question. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Airdrie and Coatbridge believe that they can obtain houses, council


house transfers and repairs only if they have the approval of the ruling Labour families on the council? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about that?

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot take points of order at this stage. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members are responsible for the comments that they make in the House and there are opportunities for rebuttal. I shall come to that as soon as the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Lang: I am aware of those allegations and I share my hon. Friend's concern. My powers to intervene in such matters are limited by statute law. Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 gives me discretionary power to order a local inquiry if I consider that a local authority has failed to carry out a statutory duty or if I am of the opinion that an investigation should be made to determine whether it has so failed. I am currently considering whether any of the allegations made may amount to a breach of the council's statutory duties.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not time that the Secretary of State took the opportunity to dissociate himself publicly in the House from the irresponsible and unscrupulous campaign being run by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and advised the hon. Gentleman that he has much better things to do with his time? Will he also ask the hon. Member to repeat his allegations outside the House where he is not covered by parliamentary privilege?

Mr. Lang: I have explained my position with regard to the statutory duties of the local authority and my own statutory powers. Others who have complaints in relation to these matters have the option of pursuing them in other ways—through the courts, the local government ombudsman, or the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have tabled a question and received what I judge to be an unsatisfactory answer about the activities of Councillor Brooks, the leader of Monklands district council. My question concerns the amount of public money which has gone into a company that has gone into liquidation and anther company that is still trading. It is only right that the House should be made aware of the public money that has been used and the debt that is outstanding on pay-as-you-earn after four years in relation to the company that has gone into liquidation. Those are matters of genuine interest to the House regardless of the political colour of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Lang: If the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland concludes that the council has illegally authorised expenditure, it can submit a special report to me with any recommendations that it may have. That may include the surcharging of those responsible; I am empowered to do that, but I have no evidence that it would be appropriate.

Mr. Galloway: Is the Secretary of State unaware how repugnant it will seem to people at home watching our proceedings that question 2 at Scottish Question Time should be from the buffoon of Basildon about Scottish independence? Question 3, which the Secretary of State is

now answering, impugns the integrity of people who are not here to answer for themselves and was asked by a man—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Black shirt.

Mr. Galloway: Never mind my black shirt. Question 3 was asked by a man who brought a prostitute into this building and caused her to have a parliamentary pass. That he should be the man casting aspersions on the characters of other people, and that the Secretary of State should associate himself with that, is a revolting spectacle.

Mr. Lang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has asked a question for me to answer.

Mr. Kynoch: Has my right hon. Friend had any approach from the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow spokesman for Scotland about carrying out an inquiry into these dreadful affairs?

Mr. Lang: No, I have not had an approach from either the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Scottish Homes Budget

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of Scottish Homes budget will be spent in Edinburgh and the Lothians in 1992–93.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes is likely to spend 12 per cent. of its programme in Edinburgh and the Lothians in 1992–93. This will be about £44 million and compares with £36 million in 1991–92.

Mr. Darling: While I welcome the fact that Scottish Homes has reluctantly increased the amount that it is spending on the east coast of Scotland, is the Minister aware that this Christmas people will be sleeping rough in the doorways and cemeteries of Scotland's capital, that 8,000 people are on Edinburgh housing association waiting lists and that others fear that in 1993 they will lose their homes as a result of increasing rents and mortgages? Will he stop Scottish Homes siphoning off public funds to help private developers and ensure that more money is put into the housing association budget to build desperately needed homes in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland, and, above all, at affordable rents?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that early next week we shall make a statement on the additional £7.5 million for the homelessness competition. Proposals have been received from more than 40 local authorities and are currently being assessed. The hon. Gentleman spoke about mortgage repossessions. Only 4 per cent. of the applications for homelessness relate to that cause. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Homes will certainly take into account not only the needs of Edinburgh and the Lothians but those of the whole of Scotland. Scottish Homes has been making substantial progress in giving funds to housing associations to alleviate homelessness.
A considerable amount of activity is taking place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Provision for the elderly is being made by Fountainbridge housing association, and Canmore housing association is providing for special


needs at Morrison street. Fountainbridge housing association is making provision at Gilmour place for a homeless group. There is a further project at Lauriston place by Lister co-operative for those in priority need, and the Old Town housing association is providing for general needs at Guthrie street. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's representations will be borne in mind when further allocations are made by Scottish Homes and the provisional allocations are made shortly before Christmas.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of houses below tolerable standard in Scotland fell yet again in the past year, this time by about 4 per cent? As it is Conservative policy to improve and not to demolish, is not that good value for public expenditure? Is he further aware that the remaining below tolerable standard houses are on the private ownership side of the housing market? Will he take account of that when allocating public funds for next year's expenditure?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall most certainly do that. About £2 million was made available for Edinburgh in a supplementary allocation for the pre-1984 backlog of repairs; that will be borne in mind before we make provisional allocations. I also confirm that Edinburgh and the Lothians received an additional £4.1 million from Scottish Homes in respect of a recent supplementary allocation. Those matters have been carefully borne in mind.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that neither Scottish Homes nor Scottish local authorities can solve the homeless problem? Have not 35,000 people registered as homeless in 1992? including 11,500 families? Is he aware that that means 84 children a day becoming homeless in 1992? Is it not clear that the Government do not care about the homeless? If they did, they would not have spent £16 million on a European summit.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The funding for the European summit was money well spent.
Scottish Homes has provided more than 1,200 housing association units during the past three years, specifically to cater for the homeless. In addition, one third of local authority nominations for Scottish Homes stock have been targeted for homeless applicants.
In the coming year, more than £1 billion will be spent on housing by Scottish Homes, local authorities and new towns. A substantial proportion of that should be used to combat homelessness as and where necessary. The statutory responsibility lies with local authorities to decide what allocation to make within their mainstream allocations.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister know that in West Lothian the number of homeless families and single people applying for housing rose by 65 per cent. this year? Does he know that this Christmas more than 2,500 children will spend the day in local authority temporary accommodation? Does he realise that 120,000 children will spend Christmas in damp and dangerous housing? At 38,000 households, the Government have beaten their previous record for homelessness in Scotland. Do they actually understand the misery for which they are responsible?
Can the Minister explain the competition to which he referred briefly a moment ago? Are the homeless now to compete with one another to get a decent, dry home?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady should be aware that last month we requested proposals for a share of the additional £7.5 million made available for homelessness projects in 1992–93. We have received proposals from more than 40 local authorities, which we are currently assessing. I had hoped to make an announcement today, but I cannot. I shall do so as soon as possible. The proposals need to be properly assessed. Of course, the most pressing priorities will be chosen.
I must make the point that 60 to 70 per cent. of homeless applicants result from family disputes. Neither local authorities nor the Government are responsible for that. However, it is right that local authorities should have the statutory responsibility. Of course, being homeless is quite different from being roofless. No one in Scotland should be roofless. Local authorities should give top priority to ensuring that any such people are looked after properly.

Maternity Services

Ms. Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards provision of full maternity services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Government's policy towards the provision of full maternity services is to enable women to have a choice of how and where they give birth, provided that this can be done safely and cost effectively. The guiding principle is the safety of the mother and child. The way in which that policy is operated is being reviewed in the light of the report by the Health Select Committee on maternity services in England and Wales.

Ms. Squire: Is the Minister aware that the choice of the vast majority of the people of Dunfermline and West Fife is that there should be full maternity services in Dunfermline? Is he further aware that the most recent survey of the wishes of local people, carried out by the local newspaper the Dunfermline Press and West Fife Advertiser, found that almost 1,000 people—the vast majority—were in favour of that provision? Will the Minister therefore express his support for a full maternity service in Dunfermline? Will he instruct Fife health board to meet the needs and the wishes of the people of Dunfermline and West Fife and to continue to provide a full maternity service in Dunfermline?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Lady's close interest in and concern about the matter on behalf of her constituents. I shall give her the up-to-date position as I understand it. The Fife health board decided on 15 December to withdraw consultant maternity services from Dunfermline, and instead to introduce a midwife-led service. My right hon. Friend awaits a formal proposal from the board, which will include the results of the public consultation to which the hon. Lady referred. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not agree to the establishment of more midwife-led units until the pilot scheme in Aberdeen has been evaluated.

Alcohol Abuse

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Council on Alcohol to discuss funding for centres dealing with alcohol abuse.

Mr. Stewart: Scottish Office officials regularly meet representatives of the Scottish Council on Alcohol. The last meeting took place on 5 November. The funding of alcohol misuse services was not raised.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in alcohol abuse centres are worried that the money allocated to them is going on the community care budget? They feel that that money should be ring-fenced and used specifically for alcohol abuse. Does he agree that the chance of people suffering from alcohol abuse because of drinking too much Scotch whisky is slim, because it is cheaper to buy a bottle of Scotch whisky on the continent than in the United Kingdom due to the terrifying amount of duty charged?

Mr. Stewart: On my hon. Friend's first question, I can reassure him that we are continuing to provide substantial support for the work of the Scottish Council on Alcohol and that the two designated places in Scotland continue to receive substantial direct assistance. The care in the community budget is generally ring-fenced, but aggregate external finance in Scotland is not ring-fenced specifically, as it is in England. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has made clear the substantial extra resources that are being allocated to local authorities for the transfer to care in the community.
My hon. Friend's second question falls within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will no doubt have noted the roar of cross-party approval that greeted my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: One of the things that could help reduce alcohol abuse is a reduction in long-term unemployment. In my community, many highly skilled men and women who have been out of work for years are in deep depression, which can sometimes lead to alcohol abuse. Surely it would be better if the Government took steps to give them back their pride and dignity, and got them back to work.

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are many reasons for trying to get unemployment down, not just the factors to which he referred. Moreover, a range of measures can be and are being taken to deal with the problems of alcohol abuse. For example, I had a useful meeting recently with the chief medical officer and employers' representatives in Scotland. Further positive moves will be taken to see how we can inculcate a responsible attitude to deal with alcohol misuse in the workplace.

Local Government

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the organisations and individuals who lobbied him in support for a reorganisation of Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The responses to the Government's first consultation paper on the reform of local government,

published last February, were made available for public inspection. The Government published a summary of responses to that paper in February of this year and this is available in the Library.

Mr. Hood: The Secretary of State knows that his proposals are anti-democratic and a further attack on local democracy in Scotland. If he denies that, will he assure the House and Scotland that, post reform, the number of councillors in district councils will not be cut? Will he further assure the House that the joint boards that he envisages in his consultation paper will be manned not by quango Tories appointed by himself, but only by elected councillors?

Mr. Lang: The proposals in the consultation paper are not undemocratic. The purpose of reform to a single-tier structure is to create stronger, more coherent local authorities. The other points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered in the consultation process. However, it is worth mentioning that his district council, Clydesdale, while expressing views on a number of other aspects, said:
The council would offer no objections to a single tier system of local government.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: When my right hon. Friend eventually brings his proposals on the future of local government to the House, will he consider allowing the people of our four great Scottish cities directly to elect their Lords Provost and to end the practice of the ruling political group choosing the first citizen?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is one which can be considered in the consultation process, along with all the other suggestions that we shall no doubt be receiving.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of the East Kilbride part of Busby have voted to stay with Labour-controlled East Kilbride rather than to transfer to Tory-controlled Eastwood? Why, then, has he overridden the views of the people? Is this a foretaste of what will come with local government reform, with the wishes of the people being ignored by the Government?

Mr. Lang: We have overruled no views. We have put out a consultation paper in which we have listed four illustrative options, but have made it clear that other options can be considered. We shall not approach the decisions that have to be made on a party political basis. I find it depressing that the hon. Gentleman can see the matter only as one of advantage or disadvantage to the Labour party.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the discussion that is taking place about Monklands is serious? He will be aware that I have taken an active interest in local government—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have insisted that other hon. Members do not use a long preamble, but put questions directly. I must apply that rule to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend go ahead with the inquiry and not wait?

Mr. Lang: I am in a position to set up an inquiry only where I am satisfied that there has been a statutory breach


of local government obligations, and I am not satisfied that that is the case with regard to Monklands district council.

Mr. McLeish: Is not the reform of local government simply a paving measure for the privatisation of Scotland's water and sewerage services? Will the Secretary of State explain why his Ministers squandered £50,000 worth of taxpayers' money in payments to Quayle Monro Ltd essentially to obtain private advice for the Conservative party? When will he publish the report from Quayle Monro? What does he have to hide?

Mr. Lang: The findings of the Quayle Monro report are reflected in the consultation paper on the future structure of the water and sewerage industries of Scotland, in which we have laid out a range of eight options and on which we welcome views. The hon. Gentleman spoke of costs. I was interested to see in The Scotsman yesterday that Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has carried out a report on behalf of Lothian region that bears out the findings of the Touche Ross report that the reform of local government to a single-tier structure will result in substantial savings.

Mr. Gale: In the light of his earlier answers, does not my right hon. Friend find it surprising that he has not received representations from the Leader of the Opposition concerning the reorganisation of local government in his constituency of Monklands, East?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, and all Labour Members of Parliament, will, in due course, address the issue of the reform of local government. I hope that their contributions to the future structure of local government in Scotland will be more constructive and forward looking than their contributions this afternoon.

Offensive Weapons

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 October, Official Report, column 530, what consultations he proposes to make on legislative proposals relating to the carrying and possession of knives and similar offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend will consult publicly in the new year on proposals to change the law in relation to the carrying and possession of knives. In light of the consultations, we shall introduce measures for consideration by the House at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Marshall: We have heard all this before, time after time. Are not murders at record levels in Scotland this year? Is it not the case that violent criminals are being let out of prison for Christmas, on condition that they do not take drink or drugs? Have not the Tory Government simply gone soft on law and order? For some years, some of us have been trying to get the Government to take action against violence on our streets. How many more people have to be mugged, maimed, slashed, stabbed or murdered before the Government will do something about this ever-growing menace to society?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Why is it that Strathclyde police are 181 officers under strength? It is because Strathclyde regional council has not employed its

full complement. The hon. Gentleman should be making strong representations about that. I know that Strathclyde has increased the number of its police officers, but it is still 181 under strength.
As for the crime clear-up rate, in 1988 it was 160,000 and in 1991 it was 184,000—a considerable police achievement. Of course I am concerned about the rising crime rate—it has been rising for the past 30 years—but police operations, such as Operation Dove in Paisley, have been extremely successful in helping to produce an overall reduction in crime. I strongly recommend similar schemes to police officers in other areas.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I remind my hon. Friend that the draconian sentences passed on the razor slashers in Glasgow—the razors in question were not lethal weapons—caused the new fancy for the knife, which is lethal? So we must be cautious on this matter. As one who carries a gun himself, even though it is rather small, I know that there are worse things in the criminal law than simple assault—for instance, fraud perpetrated at public expense in Monklands. If that is not investigated by the Lord Advocate, it should be—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is wholly irrelevant to the question, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I recall my hon. and learned Friend's gun, because he once let it off in the High Court, causing a considerable disturbance, and it was with great relief that it was discovered to have been only my hon. and learned Friend letting off a very small cap gun.
The maximum penalty for carrying an offensive weapon is two years in prison, but for the use of such weapons the penalty can be an unlimited fine or life imprisonment. Both the Lord Justice-General and the Lord Justice-Clerk have made it extremely clear that such offences will be regarded as very serious and will be severely dealt with.

Mr. McFall: What a pathetic response from the party which is supposed to be the custodian of law and order! Does not the Minister realise that there was a staggering increase of 40 per cent. in crimes involving offensive weapons in Scotland last year? Is it not amazing that in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, it is not an offence to carry an offensive weapon? The ready availability of these weapons causes immense concern. I illustrate that point by referring the Minister to the Sunday Times of 22 November in which an advertisement for a mail order magazine featured such murderous weapons as the Bowie knife—a 7 in stainless steel blad with a serrated edge. Does not that show that this activity can be described as trading in death? The police and public to whom I speak ask whether the Government have given up on crime, and if they have not, when they will start doing something about it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when we first brought in police powers of search the Labour party voted against them in the House. If a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is carrying an offensive weapon he may search that person without a warrant under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. We have said that we will take forward consultations speedily and legislate at the first available opportunity. Our commitment to law and order remains stronger than ever.

Whisky Distillers

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whisky distillers are currently in operation in Scotland now and 10 years ago.

Mr. Stewart: There are currently some 25 whisky distillers operating in Scotland. In 1982, there were 32 quoted companies engaged in Scotch whisky distilling.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that distilleries are at the heart of rural communities in Scotland and that any further closures will be quite devastating to the people of those communities? Is he also aware that sales of whisky in the United Kingdom have dropped by 1 million bottles while sales abroad, where it is taxed less and costs less, have held up? Will my hon. Friend consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him, at the very least, to peg whisky duty so it can compete on level terms with imported wines?

Mr. Stewart: The reduction in the number of distillers in the past 10 years is mainly attributable to mergers and acquisitions within the Scotch whisky industry rather than to companies going out of business or ceasing to run their distilleries. My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of distilleries, particularly to rural areas and to the success of the industry in the export market. I had the great pleasure to attend a Queen's award for export ceremony at Burn Stewart distillers in Barrhead in my constituency.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider my hon. Friend's views about duty on whisky, as well as the views of others, including the well-presented research by the Scotch Whisky Association, which was recently sent to the Treasury.

Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland had the opportunity to peruse the Pieda report, which stated clearly the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy—it is responsible for 15,000 direct jobs and 56,000 indirect ones. Those jobs will be threatened if the Chancellor does not show some partiality between the tax on wine and that on whisky—in whisky's favour. At the moment the tax on whisky is twice as much as that on wine and such an imbalance must be redressed.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's record as a strong defender of the interests of Scotch whisky is well appreciated throughout the House. He is, after all, chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky industry group. He has made an immense contribution to the debates about the industry. I repeat that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the distilleries and the whisky industry are Scotland's premier exporting industry, and that it will continue for ever if it is looked after properly? Would he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have words with the Chancellor and draw his attention to the fact that if whisky and other spirits were subject to the same tax as that on wine there would be a substantial reduction in income to the Treasury, but that if the tax on wine were brought up to the level of that on whisky there would be a substantial

inflow of funds to the Treasury? We have never understood why the Treasury has not seen that option as an opportunity to get more money.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is known for his own Bill that benefited the industry. He is absolutely right; no one can dispute the key importance of the Scotch whisky industry in relation to the Scottish economy and exports, the value of which in 1991 was more than £1,800 million.
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury will have noted the specific points that my hon. Friend has raised. I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in close consultation with the Chancellor on all matters relating to Scottish industry which affect the Treasury.

Rural Mains Extension

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional households have been connected to (a) water and (b) mains drainage in Grampian region under the rural mains extension scheme over the last six years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): More than 1,500 houses in rural areas have been connected to the public water supply system in Grampian region since 1 April 1986. No similar figures are available for connections to mains drainage, as the rural sewerage grant scheme ended in that year.

Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the Minister will recognise the importance of the programme of extending rural mains and mains drainage in areas such as Grampian, which accounts for about a third of all the households in Scotland that still have private water supplies. Is he aware that, since 1975, 700 km has been laid at a cost of £12 million? Can he assure the House that—whatever reorganisation of water is introduced—the rural mains grant will continue, and the 50 schemes that are still outstanding in Grampian will be not only completed but, if possible, accelerated?

Sir Hector Monro: It is certainly important to continue the schemes in Grampian. This year's capital allocation of £25 million is 35 per cent. higher than that for 1991–92, which shows that we appreciate the importance of the schemes. I shall consider whether to write to the hon. Gentleman about the exact details of the schemes in the future, but I think that he should feel fairly confident that, whichever of our eight options is chosen, rural water supplies will be given high priority.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation is the best recipe for those who are concerned about the level of investment in the water industry? Has not the industry in England increased its investment by 50 per cent. since its privatisation?

Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. As I have already made clear, I do not intend to make any pronouncement on the matter before the end of the consultation period. We have presented eight options, and I hope that all hon. Members will make constructive suggestions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about them. We shall reach a decision early in the spring.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that in Grampian region, as elsewhere in Scotland, it is illegal to disconnect


the water and mains drainage supplies of domestic consumers? Can he assure the House that, if it is decided to privatise the water industry, the law in Scotland will not be changed to allow disconnections in the future?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is rushing ahead. As I have just explained, we are a long way from introducing legislation. When the Bill is presented to the House, hon. Members will have ample opportunities to go through it line by line and decide—in the light of which option is chosen, and in the light of how it is introduced to the unitary system of local government—what disconnection procedures there should be, if such procedures are considered necessary. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it is not now possible to disconnect domestic supplies, and that will be taken very much into account.

Local Enterprise Companies

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the business plans of local enterprise companies.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I meet Scottish Enterprise regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, including the activities and achievements of the local enterprise companies. However, consideration of the business plans of local enterprise companies is a matter between Scottish Enterprise and the individual companies concerned.

Mr. Ross: Apparently, the Government do not intend to listen to Sir Brian Wolfson, the man selected by the Tory Cabinet to establish the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies. Sir Brian has criticised the attitude of voluntarism being taken to both TECs and LECs, and also the failure to establish a training levy of companies. But will the Minister at least listen to Scottish Enterprise Tayside? That body told me last month that it was experiencing increasing tension in its efforts to provide high-quality training for a special needs group, and that, if its budget were cut, it might reluctantly have to sacrifice both quality and quantity.

Mr. Stewart: This year, Scottish Enterprise Tayside received a budget of £23 million. Its budget increased by 5 per cent.—a larger increase than was received by any other LEC except one. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Scottish Enterprise's planned budget for next year is £9 million up on this year's plans, and an additional £20 million is expected from the European regional development fund. There will be no reduction in the overall resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 11 per cent. increase for enterprise and environmental expenditure by Scottish Enterprise and the LECs that was announced last week by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will enable those bodies to continue, at local level and with local expertise, the good work that they have carried out since their very recent inception less than two years ago?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The substantial increase in resources for the environmental and enterprise budgets has been warmly welcomed by the local

enterprise network because it offers it flexibility between its different budget heads. I have no doubt that the excellent work that the local enterprise companies have done in the past two years will continue, and that, as they gain experience, they will be able to lever in increasing resources from the private sector.

Dr. Godman: The Minister spoke of the achievements of local enterprise companies, but Renfrewshire Enterprise has achieved nothing on the lower Clyde. Many people are deeply concerned about the decision of Auld's the Bakers to move to Inchinnan. Did it receive no help from Renfrewshire Enterprise officials to locate within the Inverclyde enterprise zone? How valuable is the enterprise zone when a local company is forced to move a few miles away? Will he investigate this and other cases that reveal the pathetic performance of officials of Renfrewshire Enterprise on the lower Clyde?

Mr. Stewart: I do not understand that question because Inchinnan is in Renfrewshire; the company is moving within the territory covered by Renfrewshire Enterprise. That does not seem to be a matter of great criticism of Renfrewshire Enterprise. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member would allow me to answer the question. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I have had a number of meetings about the Inverclyde enterprise zone. We are aware that there have been some difficulties, but I assure him that Scottish Enterprise and Renfrewshire Enterprise are doing all that they can to ensure that the zone is a success.

Mr. McLeish: When will this humbug and hypocrisy end? Why is £20 million being cut from Scottish Enterprise's training budget this year, including a 13 per cent. cut in youth training and a 7 per cent. cut in adult training? Does the Minister accept that, with high unemployment, deepening recession and the guarantee for young people not being met, we should be spending more on training rather than less? When will the Government put the real needs of Scotland first instead of Ministers being content to hang on to the coat tails of English employment Ministers?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday morning, he would know perfectly well that Scotland's share of Britain's unemployment has fallen. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's statement is that he would have preferred it to rise. When shall we see an end to the humbug and hypocrisy of Labour Members about training, because the Government have increased real resources for training two and a half times in real terms compared with the Labour Government, yet every training initiative that the Government have taken has been opposed by Opposition Members?

Fisheries Conservation

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland to discuss conservation policy; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Hector Monro: Let us get back to quieter waters.
My right hon. Friend and I are available to meet industry representatives whenever it is appropriate. I last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 23 November.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister may seek quieter waters for questions, but is he aware of the great depth of anger in fishing communities that neither he nor any Conservative Member of Parliament for Scotland was prepared to march with the 4,000 fisherfolk who came to Edinburgh from the length and breadth of Scotland last week? The only support that we received from the Scottish Office was from civil servants who waved and cheered as we walked past. Given the deep anger in those communities, will he assure us that when he next discusses fisheries at the Council of Ministers he will guarantee that there will be no consecutive tie-up and that any tie-up will be flexible, will enable boats to be taken out of harbours for repairs and will take account of bad weather conditions, which often enforced a tie-up? Without that, there is no way in which he will make his policy work.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady attended the recent fishing debates and she knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I take the fishing problem extremely seriously, which is why we are so frequently in touch with the fishermen's interests. We shall go to Brussels this Friday, Saturday and Sunday, determined to achieve the best possible result for the United Kingdom's fishermen and I shall, of course, be looking after the interests of the Scottish fishermen in particular. They will and can look forward to a much better quota of haddock, in which I think that they are especially interested, and to other improvements. I gave the hon. Lady a clear understanding that we are wholly opposed to the 10-day tie-up, which we shall oppose in Europe this weekend.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I shall hear points of order after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House tell us the forthcoming business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
TUESDAY 12 JANUARY—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Motion on the Insurance Companies (Amendment No. 2) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Progress in Committee—third day.
THURSDAY 14 JANUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Progress in Committee—fourth day.
FRIDAY 15 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 13 January at 10.30 am to consider European Community Document No. 9752/91 relating to investment and management of pension funds.

[Wednesday 13 January:

European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
9752/91 Freedom of Management and Investment of Pension Funds.
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-viii (1991–92) HC 24-xv (1991–92) HC 79-i (1992–93).]

Mr. Brown: In the light of recent events in Bosnia, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, if there are any new developments in the immediate future, the Government will make a statement tomorrow morning? In any event, will he assure us that the House will be informed at the earliest possible opportunity whether there is any change in Britain's present commitment?
Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early debate on the investigation into the pit closure programme? As he will be aware, substantial concern has been expressed that one pit face in Nottingham has already closed, and there is some doubt as to whether there will be a complete and fairly judged review.
Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the workings of the internal market, especially in the context of the Tomlinson report? We understand that certain matters were deleted from the report at her insistence and we should like to question her about that.
Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the crimes committed in the Maxwell pension fund affair could not possibly recur, at least during the Christmas recess? What assurance can he give us about that?

Mr. Newton: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's questions in order.
It is always my wish, and, I know, that of my right hon. Friends, to inform the House in an appropriate way at the earliest opportunity of significant changes, should there be any, on a matter as important as Bosnia. However, there

is no basis for suggesting that that might lead to a statement tomorrow, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman meant.
I can do no more than note the hon. Gentleman's request for an early debate on pit closures. If he has in mind the period after Christmas, I point out that there is an opportunity available to the Opposition, should they wish to take it, in the business that I have just announced.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I understand that the Tomlinson report reflects the inquiry's terms of reference. It was not doctored at any stage and contains the views that Sir Bernard wished to express. Almost every statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health makes relates to the internal market of the NHS and reflects its success in increasing the amount of treatment provided.
Again, I note the hon. Gentleman's ingenious question about the Maxwell pension fund. I recognise the welcome given by the Select Committee on Social Security to the inquiry into the matter that the Government have set up with a view to ensuring that difficulties are prevented in future.

Mr. John Biffen: If, during the Christmas recess, there should be a further commitment of British armed forces into what was Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that that decision would be the subject not merely of a statement but of a debate in the House during the first week back, even if that meant rearranging business?

Mr. Newton: I very much take on board my right hon. Friend's suggestion. He will understand—this echoes what I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)—that I do not wish to add to the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister uttered on the subject generally in the House yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is concern among hon. Members of all parties that we should be informed of the latest moves on the enforcement of the no-fly zone? The Prime Minister referred yesterday to the conference today in Geneva and to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe which meets today in Stockholm. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to have a report tomorrow on the matter before the House rises.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask whether the Lord Chancellor will make a statement on the contraction of eligibility for legal aid in the light of the announcement today that representatives of the Bar Council, of the Law Society and of many other lawyers' organisations are willing to enter meaningful discussions about reducing the cost of legal aid, including the possibility of a pay freeze?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's observation on the earlier matter. He will, of course, reflect on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also referred to discussions at the North Atlantic Council on Thursday in addition to the two gatherings to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary


Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department are made aware of the hon. Gentleman's request on the question of legal aid and reports in today's papers.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have parliamentary duties away from this place at, for example, the Western European Union and the Council of Europe? In view of the fact that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may go on for the rest of our parliamentary lives, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be helpful for those of us who have other official commitments to have the same two days every week delineated by my right hon. Friend so that we know where we are and can make our plans?

Mr. Newton: Without wishing to seem to endorse what I would term my hon. Friend's overweening pessimism, I note his request, which has come from one or two other quarters of the House on earlier occasions. I recognise the need to take account as far as we can of things that are occurring elsewhere when it is proper to do so, and I note the latter part of his request. I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute promise at present, but I shall consider whether there are ways in which I could be helpful to the House, which I will describe at some later stage.

Mr. David Jamieson: The Leader of the House will be aware of the importance of the award of the nuclear refit contract to either Devonport Management Ltd. in Devonport, in my constituency, or to Babcock Thorn in Rosyth. There is clear and growing evidence that there has been a leak of vital commercial information from the DML bid to Babcock Thorn. The award of the contract involves the jobs and futures of more than 40,000 workers in both England and Scotland.
In the light of the change in stance on the matter by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement since he answered a debate in the House on 25 November this year, and as the Secretary of State for Defence has not yet found time to answer my letter to him of 7 December, will the Leader of the House allow time immediately after the recess for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement or to answer a debate on this matter of great national importance?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman made a number of points and I certainly shall not attempt to answer all of them off the cuff, but I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he should note that questions to the Ministry of Defence are at the top of the list for the Tuesday of the week that we return after Christmas.

Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is continuing disappointment in the House that he has failed to give his considered view on the recommendations made in the report of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). When does he expect to make a statement to the House on the future of the proposals?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite date, but my contacts through the usual channels are continuing, and I hope to come forward with my views without too much further delay. As on previous occasions, may I say that a number of important aspects of the

Jopling report have clearly been reflected in practice in the way that we have managed to operate the business of the House in recent weeks.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the appalling impression given to people outside by the televising of debates in the House, and in view of the fact that the succubi in the Press Gallery are the only ones who benefit financially and professionally from televising the proceedings of the House, would it not be advisable to have a debate on the matter so that the House may decide once and for all to remove that technical incunabula from the place?

Mr. Newton: I am aware from experience that one always disagrees with the hon. Gentleman at one's peril, but personally I do not share his view about the overall impression of the place created by television, which I believe has done a great deal to enhance public interest in Parliament and politics.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate—preferably over two days—on the consultation paper on the future of the BBC? I have received a lot of correspondence about it, and I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members would want to participate in such a debate.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's request; but I do not want to encourage any hopes of a two-day debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House tomorrow before we rise for the recess to give clear guidance to people throughout the country in the light of the European Court's judgment that it is time that the laws of the land on Sunday trading should be observed?

Mr. Newton: I should perhaps mention, as there will be widespread interest in the matter, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be answering a question this afternoon about the legal consequences of the judgment of the European Court of Justice. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, on 26 November at the Dispatch Box, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary described the way that the Government wanted to progress in relation to the legislation once they had the European Court judgment.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate in the new year to remind Members of Parliament that what they say and publish must be accurate and based on fact? The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—we are all delighted that he is no longer getting stoned in India—recently published a statement to say that there were now fewer teachers in employment when, in fact, more teachers are in employment than ever before. Such disgraceful behaviour by the Opposition has simply got to stop.

Mr. Newton: While I have not seen the paper to which my hon. Friend refers, I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Blackburn will carefully study what he said and will wish to correct any errors that he has put about. Manifestly, all of us would agree that we have a duty to ensure that what we say is straightforward and accurate.

Mr. Derek Enright: I wish to thank the Leader of the House because, as a result of my request to


him about miners' payments before Christmas, I received a prompt reply from the Minister concerned the next day, saying that the bonus would be paid as usual. That was subsequently repudiated by British Coal, and this morning that repudiation was confirmed by the President of the Board of Trade. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the Prime Minister to come to the House to debate early-day motion 1085, standing in my name?
[That this House recalls and approves the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that miners in pits under review would not lose benefits at the most advantageous rate; notes the confirmation by British Coal that they would withhold the vast majority of these payments despite a statement from the Minister of Energy to the contrary; and calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to intervene urgently, ensuring that payments are made before Christmas.]
Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to persuade British Coal to behave like Scrooge after rather than before his conversion?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would bring the Prime Minister to the House to debate his early-day motion. I fear that, as he may have foreseen, I do not expect to be in a position to do that. In view of the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks at the beginning of his question, I shall again make inquiries, once business questions are over.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for time to be given for an early debate on Britain's contribution to the European Community to give us the opportunity not only to congratulate the Prime Minister on the outcome of the Edinburgh summit but, particularly, to expose the hypocrisy of Opposition Members who appear intent on pouring British taxpayers' money—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy" are not words that we tend to bandy across the Chamber.

Mr. Thomason: In that case, Madam Speaker, may I withdraw and use instead the word "inconsistency"?

Madam Speaker: That is perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Newton: Clearly, the spirit of Chirstmas is now suffusing the House. I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Edinburgh, both on that matter and on a number of others. As I said in my statement, I shall be providing the House with two full days' worth of opportunities to make a wide variety of comments about Europe.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that people will be extremely disappointed that the House will be breaking up for Christmas without any statement being made on the latest developments in British policy towards Bosnia? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that those of us who have been reluctant in recent months to condone military action remain of that view but nevertheless believe that the crimes and atrocities that are being committed by the Serbians in

their so-called ethnic cleansing programme are totally unacceptable in today's world and cry out for United Nations action?
A statement should be made before the Christmas break so that the people of Britain may know to what extent we should commit ourselves. I am not suggesting that we should commit ourselves all the way by any means, but we need some action so that the criminals who now control Belgrade realise that the international community cannot stay silent or indifferent to what is happening.

Mr. Newton: The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of what is going on in the areas to which he referred. I touched on the question of a statement and debate in a number of earlier answers and I have nothing to add. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that the Prime Minister spoke in firm terms yesterday and referred—as I did during the Christmas Adjournment motion debate on Monday—to the vigorous language of the Edinburgh Council conclusions.

Mr. Bill Walker: May we have an opportunity to debate early-day motions 991, 992 and 1040?
[That this House is concerned that for the last 10 years Councillor J. Brooks has been Labour Leader of Monklands District Council, where with the help of the local Labour Party he has achieved a position of near absolute power which has resulted in (1) a £1 million land deal for a company owned by Councillor Brooks and his brother, whereby the company acquired council land for £50,000 and forced through planning permission to make the land worth more than £1 million, the payment of generous fees to Councillor Brooks and his brother and other expenses followed by the company being placed in liquidation with unpaid bills to third party creditors of over £200,000, (2) the employment by the Council of Councillor Brooks' son in Direct Works, another son in the Planning Department and a daughter in a temporary post, (3) the sacking from council employment of Labour Party member Tom McFarlane at 51 years of age, believed to be the only Monklands District Council worker ever made redundant without being offered alternative employment, because he and his wife had dared to question the internal procedures of the local Labour Party and its corrupt rule of the Council and (4) the attempt by Councillor Brooks to cover up the mafia-like behaviour of himself and other Labour councillors by seeking to obtain council funding for legal fees for a private libel action against the local newspaper and by starting a council-owned free newspaper; believes that other allegations about relationships between the expenditure of council money and benefits to Councillor Brooks and his family need to be independently investigated; and is further concerned that the manner in which the Labour Party is governing local councils in Scotland is against the public interest and requires to be independently investigated.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at Scottish questions, the conduct of Monklands district council was raised on a number of occasions. As there is an Opposition day on the Tuesday after we return, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Leader of the Opposition, who happens to have Monklands district in his constituency, that that is an opportunity to have the matter properly aired and all the charges properly examined so that the situation can be resolved?

Mr. Newton: I am happy to say that that is a question for the Opposition rather than for me. I understand that there were some somewhat heated exchanges on the matter earlier, and I regard it as my role now to try to reduce the temperature.

Mr. Ray Powell: The Leader of the House has just been asked a question on the ruling by the European Court on Sunday trading, and he referred to a reply given by the Home Secretary on 26 November which, in essence, was that he would put the Sunday trading laws in abeyance until such time as the court had ruled. The ruling was announced this morning. Surely the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General should be here to make a statement before we go into recess, and before all the large stores are allowed to trade illegally on the Sunday before Christmas. Also, one of them should be here to explain in detail the Government's interpretation of whether the Shops Act 1950 should apply or whether they will leave the law in abeyance despite the ruling of the European Court.
I want a clear decision this afternoon from the Government, through the Leader of the House, which will give guidance to all our people about whether Sunday trading is legal in the run-up to Christmas and before 22 January, when the House will accept my Bill.

Mr. Newton: It is important that I make it clear that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the statement—it was not an answer to a question—by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 26 November. On the latter part of his question, I already made it clear in my reply to another hon. Gentleman that the Attorney-General is answering a question this afternoon setting out his view of the position.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has not been able to announce a debate on foreign affairs before the end of the year, and as he could devote only 10 minutes to the subject in his speech in the debate on Monday because of his generosity to others, will he arrange for a debate on foreign affairs and especially on the situation in Bosnia? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, of all shades of opinion, want a debate, so could we please discuss the matter in the week that we come back and change the business accordingly?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, but he would not expect me to go further in view of the fact that I have just announced the business. As I said at the time, he made an impressive speech in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment motion. The principal reason that I was unable to devote much time to replying to him was that I made a short speech—as did the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)—to allow Back Benchers to have as much of the debate as possible. I devoted virtually all my speech to answering my hon. Friend and neglected other hon. Members.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House contact the Home Secretary to arrange for an urgent statement to be made to the House on the removal of Lorrain Osman from this country to Hong Kong last night? He has been held in remand in British prisons for seven years, mostly in maximum security. His family saw him at 7.30 pm yesterday, in the company of his solicitor, Mr. Kingston, and they were not told anything. Two hours

later, he was bundled on a plane to Hong Kong, where he arrived earlier today, despite the fact that an appeal to the House of Lords was pending against the decision of the Home Secretary grant an extradition order for him.
I and many people outside the House believe that the case needs to be brought out into the open. Undoubtedly, Mr. Osman has a great deal of information about the goings-on in Hong Kong and Malaysia, which also needs to be brought out into the open. There is deep anger about the way in which Mr. Osman has been treated, the length of time that he has spent in prison, and the information needs to come out now, in public.

Mr. Newton: The facts, as I understand them, are that Mr. Osman has been resisting extradition since he was committed into custody to await surrender in June 1987. The Home Secretary signed a warrant for his surrender in June this year. Mr. Osman and those representing him have been made well aware that he would be surrendered to the Hong Kong authorities as soon as outstanding legal proceedings had been completed. Following the refusal of his petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords last night, which was immediately notified to Mr. Osman's legal representatives, steps were taken to remove him to Hong Kong.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are approaching a period of great danger in the Balkans and that our indignation and anger over what is going on in Sarajevo could lead to a chain of events that could, unhappily, go out of control? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House of the strong links between Serbia and its fellow Slays in Russia, which is led by a Government who are looking increasingly beleaguered and nationalist? For those reasons, would it not be wise to involve the Russian Government closely in any initiative in the Balkans and for us not to use NATO as a vehicle for seeking a solution—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting political issues to the Leader of the House. We are dealing with the business of the House in the week after the recess. Many hon. Members have a question to ask. I am trying my best to accommodate all of them, but I shall not be able to do so if hon. Members make long statements and in consequence long replies are given. Questions and answers should be brief so that I can call all hon. Members.

Mr. Butcher: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in the House before the recess, because it would be a tragedy if we were to sleepwalk into an international crisis before we had a proper discussion?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the measured way in which my hon. Friend spoke. He will understand that I have already touched on the matter several times, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of what he has said.

Dr. Lynne Jones: In view of Birmingham city council's announcement today that all job vacancies are to be frozen, that new spending commitments are to be halted and that there are to be 3,000 redundancies in the next financial year as a result of the Government's revenue support grant settlement, and the likelihood of similar announcements from other councils as their treasurers get to grips with the figures, will


the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the Government's local government policy and its impact on services and jobs, and hence on the wider economy?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will be aware that the local government settlement involved a substantial increase. I note her request for a debate.

Mr. Toby Jessel: In view of the presentation today of the National Lottery Etc. Bill, tomorrow's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the great deal of good that that Bill will do for the arts, sport, charities and our heritage, and its widespread support in the House and the country, how soon can we expect a Second Reading debate?

Mr. Newton: Not in the first week after the recess.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government have published two policy papers in relation to Scotland, one dealing with local government and the other with the future of the water supply industry. As water privatisation was not mentioned in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party's manifesto, on which it fought and lost the election in Scotland, may we have an early debate on the Floor of the House on those major policy matters?

Mr. Newton: To give a direct answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am aware of the publication of those documents. The widespread consultation will be completed at the end of January, and I would not want to promise a debate within that time scale.

Mr. John Bowis: My right hon. Friend may recall my invitation to him to join me in a walk over London's bridges. In the light of a written answer that I have received which shows that just about every bridge from Hampton Court to the sea will be closed or partly closed to traffic in the next six months, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made either tomorrow or early in January? If not, all he can do is make a Christmas present to each of my constituents of a course on walking on water, as that will be the only way that they will be able to get here.

Mr. Newton: That is an ingenious question, but I shall still not take up my hon. Friend's offer to join him on a walk over Christmas. I note his request, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will also note his point. A debate on London transport on the Consolidated Fund was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) at some unearthly hour of the night, but I am not sure whether my hon. Friend managed to speak in it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnston Smith), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, who I understand has made firm arrangements for the

publication of the new Register. He has also put to me proposals for debating other recommendations in the Select Committee report. I have discussed those with him in the past few days, and I shall consider them through the usual channels.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Bearing in mind today's tragic bombings in Oxford street, would my right hon. Friend consider announcing a debate to address the shameful situation in which people residing within our island seem to have no regard at all for the welfare, life or limb of others?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise an early debate, but all hon. Members will echo my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In his report to the House on Monday about the Edinburgh summit, the Prime Minister said that the agreement on the Danish opt-out was between Heads of State and Governments and indicated that it was outwith the Maastricht arrangements. If that is the case, and if as a result it may not be possible to discuss those arrangements during debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, may we have an assurance that that agreement between Governments can be debated in the House?

Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance off the cuff. What is in order during debate on the Bill is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means and not for me.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the European fighter aircraft, because the Government's success in keeping that project afloat, if I may use that term in the context of an aircraft, has important implications, not only for this country's defences, but for the maintenance of jobs in the United Kingdom, not least in the Bristol area?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be answering questions in the first week after the recess. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome yet another achievement by the Government, who have brought the project to its present state with their current prospects.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible on the issue of dioxin in Bolsover and the fact that Coalite, a friend of the Tory Government, is planning to build a new incinerator? I have a petition containing the names of thousands of people who are protesting against the incinerator. At a time when Coalite shares have dropped to about 6p on the stock exchange, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a planted question on the subject by a Tory Member will be answered this afternoon so that Coalite can be given a lifeline and farmers can be allowed to operate again, just because the National Farmers Union has taken out a case against Coalite in the court? It sounds to me as if this Tory Government are aiding and abetting their friends at Coalite, and it is time that it was stopped.

Mr. Newton: I am a little uncertain about precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do. I note his


points, and I shall, of course, ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the vigour with which he has put them.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House do everything possible to persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement tomorrow on Bosnia? A statement would coincide with the arrival here of the first 100 detainees from Bosnia. If the official Opposition made Bosnia the subject of their Supply day debate on the first Tuesday back, would the Leader of the House consider switching business on the Wednesday, thereby providing for a two-day debate which would enable hon. Members to address what is clearly the most serious and dangerous political crisis facing Europe at this time?

Mr. Newton: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view and the reasons for his request, but I do not think that I can add to what I said at the start of these exchanges. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Opposition Supply day. That is entirely a matter for the usual channels and Opposition Members, who I see are nodding in agreement. However, I should not encourage hopes that the Government would wish to add a second day.

Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said earlier this afternoon? In referring to his consideration of the governance of Scotland, he said that he was giving particular consideration to improving the way in which Scottish affairs are handled in the House and to increasing the effectiveness of Scottish representatives. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a uniquely suitable subject for an early debate next year, especially as representatives of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer inelegantly calls "the other territories" within the country have a particular interest in ensuring that they are treated at least as well as Scotland?

Mr. Newton: We are always seeking to improve the way in which all parts of the United Kingdom are governed and also to improve British government as a whole. However, I do not think that I can promise an early debate on those matters in the new year.

Mr. Bryan Davies: On the matter of the National Lottery Etc. Bill, which is to be presented today, will the right hon. Gentleman dispel the unfortunate rumour that it might first be introduced in the Upper House? Does he recognise that, given the range of opinions on the Bill, it is important that it should be introduced in the Lower House?

Mr. Newton: It is my expectation that the Bill will be introduced in this House.

Madam Speaker: Indeed, presentation of the Bill is to be the next item of business.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On the question of the European Court's decision on Sunday trading, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a statement will be made by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is not the task of catching the lawbreakers, who treat the law with indifference and effrontery by opening Sunday after Sunday, in the hands of local authorities—which are short of the money that they need to prosecute those companies?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how much money he intends to give local authorities? Should he not encourage them to prosecute the big corporations that treat the law with such contempt, or are the Government being slow on that because organisations such as B and Q are considerable contributors to the Conservative party and expect something in return? If that is the truth, as I and others believe, it is a deplorable case of political corruption.

Mr. Newton: It is clear that the spirit of Christmas has now left the Chamber. I sometimes find that I am a little weary of the extent to which the hon. Gentleman sees conspiracy in absolutely everything. I have already made a brief comment on local authority financing. He is right to say that the primary role in enforcing the law on Sunday trading rests with local authorities—the precise point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the answer to which I have already referred.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: If there cannot be a statement tomorrow or during our first week back, may we have a debate on Bosnia during the first fortnight after the House returns? The subject has dominated business questions today, and that should be reflected in our business after the recess.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been much reference to Bosnia in our exchanges. Indeed, it has been quite striking, as it was in the Christmas Adjournment motion debate earlier this week.
I cannot add to what I said earlier, but the hon. Gentleman will have noted the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that it is a subject for debate that the Opposition, apart from anyone else, might wish to consider.

Dr. John Marek: In view of the flagrant breaking of the law by companies such as B and Q, other do-it-yourself stores and various supermarkets, and also the apparent abetting of those actions by the Home Secretary when he said that the law was in abeyance, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the matter is too serious to be left to a written answer? Surely the Home Secretary should come to the House and make a statement, on which he can be questioned by hon. Members, about the current position following the judgment of the European Court?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend made a specific statement on 26 November about his intentions in the wake of the judgment, whose timing we did not then know. He set out clearly and, in my view, sensibly how the Government hoped to proceed. The interpretation of the law is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—the very point on which he has answered a question this afternoon.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent ministerial response to the statement by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the Home Affairs Select Committee this morning? He said that the police may have inadequate powers to deal with IRA terrorism. In particular, he voiced his concern about the need for an urgent clarification of


the law on the ability of the police to carry out random road checks to prevent IRA terrorists from bringing lorries and equipment into central London and other towns.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me to comment on his account—not that I have reason to doubt it—of something that took place in a Select Committee hearing this morning. He will have seen, as I have, reports of action that the police have taken in recent weeks, which appears to be effective and precisely of the kind to which he referred.

Mr. John Hutton: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier response to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health in the first week after the recess about the current problems facing the national health service? Many hospitals and health authorities, not least in my constituency, face an acute cash crisis, which might lead to the closure of operating theatres and surgical wards. If ever there were a need for a statement by the Secretary of State for Health, it is in the first week after the recess.

Mr. Newton: The current position in the health service, put briefly, is that we have increased spending by 58 per cent. in real terms since we first came to office, and the extra £1 billion for next year will allow nearly 200,000 more acute in-patients and day patients to be treated in England alone.

Mr. Bill Olner: Is the Leader of the House aware of the decision reached today by the Secretary of State for Defence on youth training within the armed forces for junior leaders and apprentice training? Does he realise the effect that it will have on my constituency, with the closure of Bramcote barracks, with the loss of civilian jobs and thousands of pounds from the local economy? Will he arrange for an early statement to be made to the House next year?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is answering a written question this afternoon about the restructuring of Army training bases and has written to all hon. Members whose constituencies are affected. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that one of the Adjournment debates tomorrow—admittedly it will be brief—is on redundancies in the defence industry. Perhaps he could make a brief intervention in that debate. To do so, it would be up to him to come to an understanding with one of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I would like to think, Madam Speaker, that you are saving the best until last.
Will the Leader of the House allow time for an early debate on the 17 deaths and 9,000 injuries in the home through electrical accidents each year caused in part by the Government's failure, over the past five years, to insist that every electrical household appliance should be sold with a pre-fitted plug? We are now one of the few countries in the world that does not insist on that vital safety measure.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Points of Order

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 8 December, a bizarre meeting was organised at a west end club by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), to whom I have given notice of this point of order. He was evoking the presence of a French political leader at a meeting that he was also to address, sending the letter out by way of a circular on House of Commons notepaper to other Members' constituents. A constituent in Harrow let me have the letter yesterday afternoon.
I am disturbed not only by the fact that a Member has addressed other Members' constituents without referral but by the fact that many hundreds of circular letters on official House of Commons notepaper have presumably been sent out in official House of Commons envelopes using official stamps. I should be grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, in this serious matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is clear that vicious warfare has broken out on the Tory Benches just before Christmas. Before you answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and as you have control over the matter, I suggest that you separate them, with the anti-marketeers on one side and the marketeers on the other—[Interruption.] We have already done it on this side. We made that decision a long time ago. You will have to do it for them, Madam Speaker, now that the Maastricht Bill is on the agenda for the week when we return.

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?

Mr. Gallie: Yes, it does.

Madam Speaker: I know that it is the season of good will. I did not think that I would need to take the matter further, because I have a response, but if the hon. Gentleman can throw new light on the matter, I must hear him.

Mr. Gallie: Further to the point of order, on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—

Madam Speaker: Order. I answer points of order; Hon. Members do not.
In response to the point of order by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about dividing Members of Parliament, let me make it clear that I like hon. Members to sit exactly where they usually sit, because I know then where I can find them and keep an eye on them.
On the more serious point of the use of stationery and House of Commons envelopes, that is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, with whom I shall be raising the matter.

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You must be aware that Scottish Question Time today was the site of, and the vehicle for, a concerted abuse of the Order Paper. Four out of the first 10 Scottish questions had been tabled by English Conservative Members. Several other English Conservative Members had, unusually, come into the


Chamber to ask supplementary questions. I know that you are aware, Madam Speaker, of the deep offence that this causes in Scotland. We get only one hour a month in which to question Scottish Office Ministers and to hold them to account for their stewardship of our country. If that hour is taken up by a concerted effort, presumably organised by someone, to dominate Question Time, deep offence and deep damage to Parliament's reputation, and to that of the Union, is caused in Scotland.
To add insult to injury—this is new material that I ask you to consider, Madam Speaker—the concerted effort was not just to dominate the Order Paper but to spread foul smears against my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and against councillors elected by the people in the Monklands district, a district that has almost certainly never been seen, and could not be identified on a map, by the large number of Conservative Members who were throwing their buckets of smears at people who were not in the House to answer for themselves.
Will you consider this matter, Madam Speaker, before the reputation of the House and Scottish Question Time is further diminished to the point of negligibility in the country of Scotland whose Question Time it is supposed to be?

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me answer the first point of order.
I do not believe that Scottish Question Time is diminished in the eyes of the House or of the public in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows that there can be no manipulation of the Order Paper because questions are drawn by ballot. A place on the Order Paper is achieved through the luck of the draw. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and hon. Members representing any part of the United Kingdom are entitled to ask questions and supplementaries relating to the regions of England, Northern Ireland or Wales, and to be called to do so.
Furthermore, I attempt to ensure that a proper balance is achieved. Therefore, there can be no concerted manipulation of the Order Paper because it is my responsibility to ensure that no one group, or no handful of hon. Members, on whichever side of the House, can manipulate or in any way use the Order Paper to their advantage. That remains my responsibility. I am particularly concerned at Scottish Question Time to ensure that there is fair play and that, when any antagonistic or abrasive questions are raised, there is always ample opportunity for proper rebuttal, from whichever side.

Mr. Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This House and the government of the United Kingdom are being brought into disrepute in the eyes of many people in Scotland, and if Conservative Members carry on conducting themselves as they have in recent months and years, the Union will be endangered.
I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on certain aspects of recent Scottish Question Times. I recognise your important duty to protect the interests of minorities in the House, including the apparently growing minority of English Tories who want to put questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree that they are entitled to do that; but is it absolutely necessary to call such a high proportion of that minority at Scottish Question Time? Today we heard from Hendon, Reading, Thanet, Basildon, Dover, Uxbridge and Altrincham and Sale—most of these Members expressing a new-found interest in the affairs of Monklands district council, an interest likely to have been inspired by Tory Whips.
Will you reflect on the limited rights of the Scottish majority? Sixty-one of the 72 seats in Scotland are represented by members of Opposition parties, and the odds against our being able to raise issues on behalf of our constituents seem to be growing ever longer, to the point where our constituents wonder whether we are here.

Madam Speaker: If I am asked in a reasonable manner, I will always reflect on the way Question Time is conducted, but I do not think that Scottish Members do badly at Scottish Question Time or at any other Question Time.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL LOTTERY ETC.

Mr. Secretary Brooke, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mrs. Secretary Shephard, and Mr. Robert Key, presented a Bill to authorise lotteries to be promoted as part of a National Lottery; to make provision with respect to the running and regulation of that National Lottery and with respect to the distribution of its net proceeds; to increase the membership and extend the powers of the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund; to amend to law relating to lotteries promoted on behalf of societies or by local authorities and the law relating to pool betting; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Slaughterhouses

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the regulation and supervision of slaughterhouses.
Earlier this Session, I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to my Conservative colleagues who have given me such amazing support.
We are interested in maintaining high-quality food which is safe to eat. At no point have we tried to back away from the Government's commitment to safe food hygiene, but we are faced with massive over-regulation. The fresh meat hygiene and inspection regulations implementing EC directive 91/497 are over-regulatory—and it is not just this country that is discovering the associated problems. The German Health Minister has said in the German Parliament:
EC experts will be overseeing our small butchery businesses and butchers' slaughterhouses. I do not believe such supervision to be rational, given that these businesses only trade on the domestic market. Such monitoring—abiding by the subsidiarity principle—should remain the responsibility of the national monitoring authorities alone".
That was said not by a member of the agricultural lobby but by the German Health Minister, who is concerned above all else with public health.
Deregulation, like charity, ought to begin at home. It is not good enough for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to blame the European Community for all the problems facing our agriculture. The current regulations, emanating from the European Community via the common agricultural policy and augmented by MAFF, make George Orwell's vision seem like that of Adam Smith. We seem to be facing ever greater regulation.
We are told that choice is important, but what about the choice that people should enjoy to visit different types of butcher, besides Tesco or Sainsbury? The Minister replying to my Adjournment debate said that consumers increasingly favour one-stop shopping. That is all very well for those who happen to live close to such shopping, but those who live in isolated rural communities that depend on the local butcher or the local farmer do not have this choice. We want realistic choices for real people in real communities.
Particular ways of life in this country need defending. We do not all, thank God, live in sprawling suburbs, and woe betide us if we try to apply one pattern to the whole population. That is the way to lose the stability that traditional ways of life have brought us.
As on previous occasions, I note that the Opposition Benches empty as soon as we debate rural issues—Opposition Members have no interest in them. Creeping urbanisation, represented by most Opposition Members, threatens our way of life in the countryside.
How will the regulations affect farmers with a small number of stock? Where will they go if their small abattoirs are closed? What will happen to casualty stock? What will all those who are worried about animal welfare have to say if the Government bring in regulations that mean that animals must be transported longer and longer distances to slaughterhouses? That will lead to more and more stressed animals at the point of slaughter and that will not help to guarantee the hygiene and quality of the food that consumers receive.
We must also remember the "minor problem" of employment. The south-west will be hard hit by the regulations, and if the costs are applied across the region, we will lose up to 1,000 jobs. The Opposition are always great when it comes to fighting for jobs in urban areas, but they do not seem too concerned about those in rural areas; it is left to Conservative Members to defend them.
It is important to consider the implications of the proposals relating to ante and post-mortem inspections. There is a fundamental difference between our practices and those of Europe. Since the 19th century, United Kingdom controls have developed through local government, under medical guidance. The principal players are the medica officers of health, environmental health officers and meat inspectors. In other countries, such inspections are not carried out by veterinary surgeons. In Holland, for example, the public health veterinarians are part of a different tradition and a different system from our own. The regulations are trying to apply a model on to the United Kingdom that does not fit our heritage and our tradition. Many of the problems with the regulations stem from that.
Our system works well in general, and it does not need profound change or to be subject to the profound centralisation envisaged by the regulations. It is important to consider the competence of those who will be asked to carry out the inspections. A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) revealed the Government's belief that
The degree qualification obtained by every veterinary surgeon fully equips him or her to perform both ante and post-mortem inspections."—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c.718.]
The House might be interested to know that that experience may often be equivalent to one week's training before graduation. That does not match the 30 years of experience of some of our meat inspectors. I do not believe that those inspectors will take kindly to being told by someone who has had one week's experience or even a subsequent course on inspection, which may last just a couple of weeks, that he now takes precedence in terms of carrying out those ante and post-mortem inspections.
The supervision of slaughterhouses must continue to give out with minimum regulation. It should pay full regard to the maintenance of competition, consumer choice, employment prospects and economic viability of abattoirs. That supervision should be conducted in a way that is consistent with nationally established practices, traditions and heritage. In the United Kingdom, that will mean restricting veterinary inspection and continuing to use environmental health officers and meat inspectors to carry out the necessary supervision.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Tom King, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Bernard Jenkin.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES

Dr. Liam Fox accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the regulation and supervision of slaughterhouses: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January 1993 and to be printed.[Bill 107.]

Orders of the Day — Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 4

APPEAL BY LORD ADVOCATE AGAINST SENTENCE IN SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS ETC

?(1) After section 228 of the 1975 Act (which provides for appeal by a person convicted on indictment) there shall be inserted the following section—

228A. Where a person has been convicted on indictment, the Lord Advocate may appeal against the sentence passed on conviction—

(a) if it appears to the Lord Advocate that the sentence is unduly lenient; or
(b) on a point of law.".

(2) In section 442 of that Act (Which provides for appeal in summary proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph.
"(c) the prosecutor in such proceedings may, in any class of case specified by order by the Secretary of State under this paragraph, so appeal against the sentence passed on such conviction if it appears to the prosecutor that the sentence is unduly lenient."; and
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any order so made shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".?.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 24.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I pay tribute to the particular interest taken in this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), both of whom tabled amendments or new clauses on it. Their concerns have been refined in the new clause and, with the amendments, it seeks to meet the undertaking that I gave in Committee. I also believe that it meets the views expressed by those hon. Gentlemen.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has submitted a petition on this matter and I trust that the outcome of today's debate will meet in full his concerns and those of other hon. Members.
The amendments are numerous, and in most cases make technical changes to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to ensure that an appellant may not only be a convicted person, but may also include the Lord Advocate. The main provision of interest is the proposal to insert into section 228 of the 1975 Act a new power to enable the Lord Advocate to initiate an appeal in solemn

proceedings against a sentence which he considers to be unduly lenient, or to appeal on a point of law. The new clause provides that the Lord Advocate has four weeks from the date of sentence to initiate such an appeal. The four-week period will ensure that appropriate cases are not lost for lack of time, and that there is no pressure to lodge appeals about which there has been less than full consideration simply to ensure that the time limit is observed.
As announced in Committee, the new Crown right of appeal will operate for solemn procedure on commencement of the relevant provisions. An order-making power is proposed to bring in the Crown right of appeal for selected categories of summary proceedings. The necessary consequential amendments to part II of the 1975 Act are also made.
I should draw to the House's attention the proposed replacement of section 452A(2). This provision is intended to clarify the powers of the High Court in determining stated case sentence appeals under summary procedure. I believe that the power of a Crown right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences is to be welcomed. It redresses the balance. At present, a convicted person may appeal against any sentence, but the Crown has no opportunity to do so where that sentence appears manifestly lenient. I must stress that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate envisages that the power will be used very sparingly. It is not a power to involve the Crown in the sentencing practice of the court; that will remain the preserve of the judges. What it does is provide an opportunity to enable the court, through the appeal mechanism, to revisit that sentence where it appears to have been inappropriately light.
I commend new clause 4 and the related amendments to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and in particular for his appreciation of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity to read the Scottish Office central research unit paper entitled "Sexual History and Sexual Character Evidence in Scottish Sexual Offence Trials". It makes extremely interesting reading, and is highly relevant to what we are discussing. There is clear evidence that in too many cases judges are not enforcing the 1986 legislation on unfair questioning of complainants in rape and sexual offence trials. If that is so, it is not surprising that some judges also fail to treat such cases with the severity that they deserve.
Like my party, I have never been a hanger, beater or flogger, but that does not mean that my hon. Friends and I agree with sentences for serious crimes so light as to amount to no more than a tap on the wrist. A Scottish judge gaoled for two years a man who had pushed a girl to the ground, stripped her and raped her. The judge said that it had not been a violent rape. The same judge admonished and freed a sex attacker who had admitted a reduced charge of indecent assault. He regarded the assault as "minor". A man who had killed his wife and month-old son was admonished and freed.
Does the Minister agree that aging male judges often seem to take sexual assaults against women less seriously than the rest of us? In the English courts, it is possible for such light sentences to be reversed; we want a similar arrangement in Scotland. Scandalously light sentences


have also been passed in the English courts for equally serious crimes. Only recently, a judge in an English court told a rapist that he had shown concern and consideration because he had worn a contraceptive. Another fined a business man £2,000 after he picked up a hitch-hiker, drove her to a deserted road and raped her. A man who abused his 12-year-old stepdaughter was give two years' probation, with the sympathetic comment that his wife's pregnancy had caused problems for a healthy young husband. I could go on, but I think that I have probably made my point.
Many of us think that such sentences betray an attitude —which is not shared by the rest of society—that such crimes are not too serious. The judge who sentenced the Ealing vicarage rapists to three years and five years shortly afterwards sentenced a pickpocket to three years. Most of us question the common sense of anyone who can equate rape with pickpocketing. I recently had my purse stolen on the London underground. I was annoyed, of course, but not seriously upset. Women who have suffered sexual assaults such as I have described have had their lives adversely affected for many years. Does the Minister agree that there is a case for giving judges who need it some awareness of the values of the society that they so abysmally fail to represent?
I hope that my points will be taken up and that the new clause will be agreed. If some judges are out of touch with society, it is important that society should take the opportunity to reverse such ridiculously light sentences.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I warmly welcome new clause 4 and thank the Minister for his kind words in opening.
New clause 4 is based on the public perception that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) described. Sometimes the courts display inconsistency, lack of logic and a failure to match the seriousness of the crime with the sentence. That is what new clause 4 addresses.
In Committee, I referred to the Samuel Merry case in Ayr, about which I introduced a petition. A young man died, yet one defendant was given a nine-month sentence and another a four-month sentence. My constituents could not see the sense of that. In Committee, I said that the new clause offers advantages for the relatives of the victim and for those who have been sentenced, because in reviewing such sentences the facts of the case may become more known to the public, which may increase their understanding. Although there are two sides, my concern is for the victims and the public, who look to the law for protection.
I am advised that in Scotland it takes an average of 14 convictions before someone ends up in gaol. In the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) spoke of an epidemic of crime.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am surprised by the statistic that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted. It would help me and perhaps other hon. Members if he could give the source of that statistical information.

Mr. Gallie: I am happy to do so: the governor of Shotts prison.
In the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday, the hon. Member for Fife, Central referred to an epidemic of crime in Scotland, and called for increased police resources. My argument is that a senseless circle is operating. If the courts do not back up the police when they get convictions, there is something wrong with the system. New clause 4 will deal with that issue and, once again, I thank the Minister.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The governor of Shotts prison possesses many qualities and doubtless holds his position because he understands the prison service and how to deal with prisoners but, as far as I am aware, he has not previously been prayed in aid as a source of statistical information on which one can rely better to inform the debate. The information offered to the House should not stand between us and proper consideration of the new clause.
The new clause is a substantial departure in principle from what has been the law of Scotland since time immemorial. It is noticeable that the English Members who found Scottish Question Time such an attractive opportunity to make points about the government of Scotland are conspicuous by their absence when we come to discuss an issue which goes to the very heart of the Scottish legal system and which represents a substantial departure in principle from what has previously been our law.

Mr. Gallie: I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that many Scottish Members who attempted to ask questions, and did so, are also absent now. There are now three hon. Members on the Labour Benches, one on the Liberal Bench and none on that of the Scottish National party.

Mr. Campbell: We can accept those statistics as rather more reliable than those emanating from the governor of Shotts prison. It is worth noting the apparent lack of application to a matter of such substantial principle in this unitary Parliament, about which we are so often told.
In support of the new clause, it has been said that sentences have sometimes been passed which are apparently inappropriate to the gravity of the crime. That is unquestionably true. It will always be true under a system of sentencing in which there is no fixed tariff and where there is a substantial degree of judicial discretion. On the basis of more than 20 years practice in the criminal courts, where I prosecuted and defended, I happen to believe that the maintenance of that judicial discretion is a very important part of our legal system. The new clause will trench on that.
I shall not oppose the new clause, but it is right that the House should pass it into law only with some account being taken of the fact that it is a substantial departure from what we have known.

Mr. Bill Walker: I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman as we all respect his experience in the courts and of the legal system. I am delighted that he will not vote against the new clause, but I should have thought that, as a lawyer, he would always be happy for the opportunity to have a second look at anything because errors occur in human activities. That is as true on the Bench as anywhere else. As I understand it, the new clause will provide an opportunity—nothing more—to appeal. Surely that is a good thing.

Mr. Campbell: It would introduce rather more than that. If the hon. Gentleman read the terms, he would learn that the Lord Advocate has to be satisfied that the sentence which has been passed is "'unduly lenient". Therefore, it is not a question of a second look but of the Lord Advocate saying to the High Court of Justiciary that in his judgment, as the principal Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland, a sentence previously passed is unduly lenient. That is not a second look but—in essence or practice—a recommendation from the Lord Advocate that one sentence should be replaced by another.
4.45 pm
That argument is offered in the context that in Scotland we are somehow guilty of imposing lenient sentences. The truth is that the sentences imposed in the United Kingdom are generally much more severe than in any of the neighbouring European countries, and in Scotland, sentences are generally more severe than those in England and Wales. One need only have regard to the view which the High Court of Judiciary has consistently taken on the possession of drugs and, in particular, on possession with intent to supply, to be satisfied that in Scotland the notion that sentences are regularly inadequate or unduly lenient is unfounded.
The Minister said that the new clause was not an effort on the part of the Crown to influence the judiciary, but one must bear in mind the fact that, if the Lord Advocate were, in the exercise of his judgment, frequently to try to take advantage of the terms of the new clause, there would be a risk that that would be seen as undue influence on the judiciary.
It is important to remember that, although the Lord Advocate is a Law Officer, he is also a member of the Government and, as such, it is not impossible for him to find himself under considerable political pressure. I have no doubt whatsoever of the integrity or robust independence of the present Lord Advocate, whom I know well, but the ancient office of Lord Advocate has not always been as well served as it is by its present incumbent. The House should recognise the risk, under the new clause, of a Lord Advocate finding himself under pressure from political sources within the Government of which he is a member to refer particular cases over a period of time in such a way that the judiciary might feel that they were being influenced as had not previously happened in Scotland.
I accept that the broad swathe of opinion is in favour of the new clause, and I shall certainly not oppose its passing into law. However, it should not be passed into law as a reflection of a desirable opportunity for a form of revenge for those who feel that sentences imposed for crimes against them should be increased.
On a more practical point, the Minister said that the Lord Advocate must exercise his right, which the clause confers on him, within four weeks of the passing of a sentence. That is a curious provision. As I understand section 231(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the person who is the subject of the sentence has only 14 days in which to mark an appeal if he regards the sentence as excessive. It is curious that the Lord Advocate needs 28 days, whereas the person on whom a sentence is passed is given only 14 days.
One must also remember that the person on whom the sentence is passed will almost invariably be engaged in a transaction with the legal aid authorities as to whether he

may be admitted to the legal aid scheme. I hope that the Minister will explain why it is necessary for the Lord Advocate to be given such an extended period, for the fundamental reason that when a sentence is passed on a person, that person is entitled to know as soon as is reasonably practicable—even if the new clause were passed—that that is the sentence which he or she will be required to serve. I submit that any extended period which gives rise to uncertainty is wholly unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why the Lord Advocate will require 28 days.
From my own experience as an advocate-depute in the High Court, I believe that it will be instantly clear to those representing the Crown whether a particular case falls into the category embraced by new clause 4. There is no reason for an extended period.
The new clause gives a substantial power to the Lord Advocate. It is a power which, if exercised with responsibility, will be unlikely to cause injustice but which, if exercised irresponsibly, could cause grave injustice. For that reason, it is right that the House should pause for a moment to consider the implications of what we are being asked to do, and not merely rubber-stamp it as a means of assuaging public opinion.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has said, it is difficult to argue against the sentiments of the new clause. I agree with him when he advises that we should stand back and consider what powers we are giving. Powers are fine when used for the right reasons, but when powers are used for the wrong reasons and when political influences are brought to bear on decision making, the whole process of the administration of the law is brought into disrepute.
I refer briefly to clause 3 to make my point. I am concerned when pressure is brought to bear on judges, and I am equally concerned about the powers given to the Secretary of State. The Minister may argue that the Secretary of State already has those powers. I refer to one power that has been used to the detriment of the administration of law in Scotland.
I refer to the case of a killing that happened in Larkhall almost 10 years ago. A family were convicted for art and part. A young man pleaded guilty to using a knife and to causing the death of a policeman. The father and the daughter were subsequently found guilty of that murder. I refer to Hugh Murray junior, who admitted to the murder, to his father, Hugh Murray senior, and to his sister, Mrs. Margaret Smith.
As a result of a statement made in the House by the then Secretary of State, Lord Younger, anyone convicted of killing a policeman would serve a minimum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. That has caused some confusion, to say the least, about what is in the process of happening to those three convicted persons. As I said on Second Reading, everyone involved with her in the prison service, everyone who has met her and everyone who has seen her has said that Mrs. Margaret Smith is an ideal prisoner. She was convicted of murder because she was present when her brother committed murder. She has been up for parole and a recommendation from the parole board is lying on the Secretary of State's desk. I raise the matter because I see the Secretary of State in his place. If justice is to be served, that young woman should be released as soon as possible. I hope that that will be the case.
Surely the House cannot be comfortable about allowing a Minister literally to make law on the hoof by making a policy decision that will be left to those who succeed him. I do not oppose the spirit of the new clause, but I take the opportunity to say that we should consider carefully when we empower people. I am sure that politicians are honourable men and women, but powers given to Ministers may be misused at some future date. For that reason, we should be careful. I do not oppose the new clause, but I advise some further consideration of what it means.

Mr. David Trimble: The new clause provides an opportunity for an appeal by the Lord Advocate in certain cases in which he thinks it appropriate. The provision is analogous to provisions introduced in the law of other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom in recent years, which have operated on a number of occasions. In that sense, I regard it as relatively uncontroversial.
When appeals are made, every opportunity should be taken to ensure that there is a fair and just result. In the context of appeals, I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the question of ensuring full disclosure of relevant material for appeals. I do not want to go into the details of the case with which I am concerned at the moment. I have written to the Secretary of State and to others in connection with it, and the Minister may be aware of it.
It was brought to my attention that there seems to be a serious omission in legislation whereby information that is vital to the prosecution on appeal has not been disclosed and the police in Scotland seem to be reluctant to disclose it. I speak rather hesitantly as an outsider in these matters. However, from this case, it seems as if there is a gap. We want a fair and proper result on appeal. I draw the Minister's attention to that so that he can consider whether it is appropriate in the context of the new clause, of the Bill or of other circumstances, and so that we can ensure that there is full and complete disclosure when appropriate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall answer a number of points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) mentioned different sentences being given in rape cases. There is more consistency now than there was in past years and judges are more aware of sentencing patterns. They are published and that has been a matter for public comment. Only occasionally are there cases about which there is serious and substantial complaint. I welcome the hon. Lady's support for the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) also welcomed the new clause strongly, believing that the punishment should fit the crime. I repeat that complaints about cases are not frequent.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised the question of the length of the right to appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that in solemn proceedings, the convicted person has to submit an appeal within two weeks of the date of sentence. That period can be extended on application to the High Court. Under the provisions, the time limit for the Crown cannot be so extended. The different time limits are proposed to allow the Crown sufficient time for

considered reflection on whether to initiate an appeal on the ground of undue leniency, having regard both to the general level of sentence for the type of case and to the individual circumstances of the case.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East also asked whether the Crown should become involved in sentencing. The function of the Crown is not to contend for a particular sentence, but exceptionally to bring to the attention of the Appeal Court sentences that appear to be unusually lenient. The matter of the appropriate sentence is entirely one for the judiciary and the Crown will continue to have no involvement in it at trial stage.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised the case of the murder of a police sergeant. The present debate is not about particular cases. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed the matter with my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State and that he has promised to let him know the outcome of the review in progress. I cannot, therefore, take the matter further this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised another matter. I shall look into it and I draw it to the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a full reply. I cannot give him full details this afternoon as I am not familiar with them, but I shall ensure that he gets a full reply as soon as possible.
I shall now deal with the issue of political influences on the Lord Advocate in deciding to appeal.
5 pm
In the prosecution of crime, the Lord Advocate must act in the public interest. He must also apply the test of undue leniency purely in the public interest. In appealing, he would only be placing the issue once again before the court, the role of which, as at present, will be to determine the appeal by affirming or amending the sentence.
The Law Officers act independently, which is absolutely right. They do not have to give reasons as to why they do or do not appeal or prosecute. The Lord Advocate has made it clear that he envisages that the power will be used sparingly.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise to the Minister and other hon. Members for my late appearance, but assure them that I was attending a meeting of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

Mr. Bill Walker: That is very important.

Dr. Godman: It is indeed.
New clause 4(1) states:
228A. Where a person has been convicted on indictment, the Lord Advocate may appeal against the sentence passed on conviction—
(a) if it appears to the Lord Advocate that the sentence is unduly lenient;
How is such a matter brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate? It appears worrying that some over-lenient sentences have been imposed on those who have inflicted violence on women in rape cases. Many such rape case proceedings are disfigured by a judge allowing the defence counsel to trawl through a woman's sexual history. It seems that such trawling may persuade a judge to impose a lenient sentence. How are such matters brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A variety of sources, such as the hon. Gentleman, lawyers or the press, could


draw the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate, who has said that he would use the power very sparingly. However, it is a significant change in the law of Scotland, which will give the public greater confidence in the judiciary and the legal system.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Would it not be appropriate for a report to be sent by the prosecutor of the case to the Lord Advocate as a matter of routine? The report, to be drawn up at an early stage, would give the opinion of the prosecutor—an advocate-depute in the High Court or representative of the procurator fiscal service in a lower court. That would be the procedure, and I am not sure that it would require to be put into legislation. There should certainly be some routine procedure—the idea that the matters can somehow be brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate because of the way in which they are dealt with in a newspaper or because of the outrage felt by Members of Parliament, seems wholly inappropriate in relation to a power that is, as the Minister has concluded, of such significance.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that, in the normal course of affairs, the procurator fiscal will draw the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate in the first instance. The Lord Advocate may make inquiries of a fiscal in some cases, but the normal procedure will quite rightly be, as has been suggested, a matter for the fiscal. The Lord Advocate and the Law Officers should not be unnecessarily influenced by other sources, and I am sure that they will not.
New clause 4 is highly desirable and I strongly commend it to the House. It redresses the imbalance whereby the convicted person has a right of appeal and the Crown does not. It will ensure that formal procedure exists so that the Appeal Court can re-examine a sentence which, in the view of the Lord Advocate, is unduly lenient. It marks a constructive development in Scottish criminal procedure.

Mr. John McFall: The Scottish Conservative manifesto for the 1992 general election stated:
We will give the Crown a right of appeal against sentences which arc too lenient".
The Opposition tabled the amendment to that effect. This is the first and last occasion when we shall ensure that the Government stick by their manifesto pledges.

Mr. Gallie: I tabled a new clause which was worded differently from that tabled by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). The changes to it were made for specific reasons, but it was a Conservative clause that was accepted.

Mr. McFall: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that he had a hand in the amendment, and I would not argue with that.
I was talking of the equity between the accused's right of appeal and the Crown's right of appeal so that the accused and the prosecutor receive equal treatment. As has been mentioned, such a system exists in England and Wales. Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to refer a case, so we have an idea how such legislation operates.
In a written answer to a question that I asked on 20 February 1992, the then Attorney-General, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said:
Since February 1989, when this part of the Criminal Justice Act came into force, I have sought the leave of the Court of Appeal to refer 69 cases, including five from Northern Ireland, in which the sentence passed appeared to be unduly lenient. Of these, in 36 cases the sentence was increased, seven cases were withdrawn by me, in a further 10 cases the sentence was not changed, in one case the sentence was lowered".—[Official Report, 20 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 225.]
The legislation allows the courts to increase and, if necessary, reduce the sentence. It is to be welcomed in that it corrects erratic sentencing.
I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), but the legislation already operates. In my constituency, parents whose children have been killed in road accidents come to me and, as a layman, it seems to me that the sentences passed on those responsible for the deaths are very lenient. If people can see that the case has been referred, it could help some of them to come to terms with their grief. I say that from the experience of talking to a number of constituents about the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) mentioned cases involving women. I still think that the sentencing in such cases is often erratic. I refer the Minister to the research undertaken by Pat Carlen over the years—"Women's Imprisonment: Study in Social Control". She asked a representative sample of the Scottish judiciary for their comments. In 1992, the judiciary still say of women appearing before them, "If she is a good mother, we don't want to take her away; if she is not a good mother, it doesn't matter." Attitudes like that must change, but they still exist.
It is with the intention of changing such attitudes and ensuring equity of treatment both to the accused and the prosecutor that we have tabled amendment No. 1 and shall support the new clause.

Dr. Godman: I have some sympathy with the wording of section 228A(a) in new clause 4, which refers to the fact that the Lord Advocate may believe that a sentence is "unduly lenient". Such sentences are occasionally passed, especially when people are convicted of violent criminal acts.
On the whole, our judges in Scotland are not quite so eccentrically lenient in such cases as many judges south of the boarder. It is not so very long ago that, in a case arising from the appalling rape of a woman, an English judge said that we all know as men that when a woman says no she does not always mean no. If the new clause gives women and others concerned about over-lenient sentencing in rape cases a measure of comfort, it should command the support of all hon. Members.
I am concerned about the way in which complainers in rape cases are dealt with in our courtrooms. In such cases, women should be given the same kind of protection that we have agreed should be afforded to child witnesses and child complainers in sexual abuse and child abuse cases. A woman who has been subjected to rape and who then has to face the ordeal of recounting her experiences in the courtroom is in many respects as vulnerable psychologically as a young child who has been subjected to abuse.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Goodman: Those who seek to protect the interests of such vulnerable persons will to some extent be heartened by the wording of the new clause in respect of unduly lenient sentencing. Now I shall be lenient with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).

Mr. Gallie: I identify with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I put it to him that the difference between my new clause and the new clause tabled by the Opposition was that I proposed to take out the words
on a point of law".
Had those words been left in, the hon. Gentleman's point would not have been met.

Dr. Goodman: That was a most interesting intervention.

Mr. Hood: It is Christmas.

Dr. Goodman: As my hon. Friend says, it is Christmas, but just at this moment I am not feeling very Christmassy as I still have all my cards to sign. Moreover, if the hon. Member for Ayr cares to examine the new clause, he will find that the phrase
on a point of law
is still there.
As I said in Committee, those who are proceeded against and found guilty of heinous acts of violence must suffer condign punishment. That must be especially true in relation to rape cases. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East that a memorandum should be published giving guidance on how the Lord Advocate's eye can be caught in cases of unduly lenient sentencing. I give the proposal—especially as it affects women complainers, many of whom have to watch the perpetrators of sexual violence receive unduly lenient sentences—a cautious welcome.

Mr. Hood: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will remember intervening on my Second Reading speech to support my case on over-lenient sentencing and to give an example of his own. I had occasion to write to the Lord Advocate drawing his attention to the decision by a sheriff in a Lanarkshire court to impose a three-month prison sentence on a man found guilty of breaking into a pensioner couple's home with two colleagues wearing ski masks, of robbing the pensioners and hitting them over the head with a hammer. A week or so ago, I received a letter from the Lord Advocate saying that he took my point but could not interfere with the decision and judgment of a sheriff.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, when I complained to the Lord Advocate, he was not prepared to do anything about it even though he shared my view? I would sack a sheriff who behaved in such a way.

Dr. Godman: I believe that it is extremely difficult to bring about the dismissal of a sheriff for his or her eccentric sentencing practices, but I agree with my hon. Friend and recall the case to which he referred.
I said earlier that our judges are less eccentrically lenient than some south of the border, but some of our sheriffs behave in a weird way when sentencing miscreants who have perpetrated violent crimes. That is especially true in drink-driving cases. Some sheriffs are appallingly over-indulgent to those whom they sentence for such crimes. If someone runs down someone else in his or her

car when under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that person should, on conviction, receive a hefty punishment. Some of our sheriffs need people like us to bring that home to them.
Presumably, on the basis of what the Minister said a few moments ago, if we, as members of the public and Members of Parliament, are concerned about an unduly lenient conviction, we shall be able to write to the Lord Advocate and bring the matter to his attention. Presumably, we shall also be able to tell him to do something about it—to review the case. That is why I thought that the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North East that some form of guidance should be issued on these matters was a good one.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that hon. Members should be prevented from writing to the Lord Advocate as a matter of public concern, which they are perfectly entitled to do at present.

Dr. Godman: The Minister is absolutely right, and I have always received courteous and expeditious responses from the holders of that august office, but the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) received, however courteous, was at best extremely unhelpful. If the new clause is accepted, presumably my hon. Friend or anyone else can expect to receive a different kind of response—the Lord Advocate may be inclined to be more positive in such a case. I remember the case to which my hon. Friend referred and I thought that an appallingly lenient sentence was imposed on the mindless thugs responsible. People who perpetrate violent crimes must be told plainly that they will not receive unduly lenient sentences when convicted.
I shall be pleased to see the provision included in the Bill. Given than I am much more modest that the hon. Member for Ayr, if the hon. Gentleman deserves the credit for the new clause, I shall give him the credit so that he can put his name in whatever the journal is called. It is a useful measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONCEALMENT BY SCREEN OF ACCUSED FROM PERSON AGED 16 YEARS OR MORE GIVING EVIDENCE

?.—()(1) Section 34 of this Act shall apply in relation to a person aged 16 years or more as it applies in relation to a child if application is made to the court in that regard.

(2) An application under subsection (1) above shall be granted only if the judge taking into account the age of the person and the physical condition and mental capacity of the person is satisfied that the granting of the application—

(a) is in the interest of justice; and
(b) in the case of an application by the prosecutor is not unfair to the accused.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and Read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause concerns the concealment by a screen of the accused from persons aged 16 years or more giving evidence. We debated the issue in Committee and had a fruitful debate on clauses 32 to 44, with a positive outcome.
The reason for tabling the new clause is to highlight the inconsistency between statutory provisions for children


aged 16 and under and non-statutory provisions for adults with a mature chronological, but young mental, age. Adults in that category will not have the same provision as children, and that could result in a lack of cohesion in judicial decisions and perhaps to idiosyncratic decisions, since there will be no legislative standard to judge by.
The Law Commission recommended screens for other vulnerable witnesses. The new clause seeks to bring clarity and consistency to the approach to vulnerable witnesses, whether or not they are below the age of 16. We welcome the provisions for those under 16, but nothing exists for people over that age. If the Government can accept the Law Commission's report and recommendations for children, why can they not accept them for other vulnerable witnesses, such as people with a mature chronological but a young mental age? They suffer the same problems as young children, so the same statutory arrangements should be available for such vulnerable witnesses. The new clause is therefore moved with that in mind.

Dr. Godman: I am happy to support the new clause. The use of a screen in a courtroom is, at best, a crude protection device. It separates a child witness from the person charged with an offence. If children can be protected by such measures, other people whom I regard as equally vulnerable should be given similar help. Without wishing to cause any trouble to the Chair, I want the provision to be extended to clause 33 of the Bill where vulnerable persons are concerned, but the new clause refers to clause 34 and the use of screens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) mentioned people who may be chronologically mature but mentally incapacitated. These days, the phrase that we are urged to use is "persons with learning difficulties". I tend to use the old-fashioned phrase and refer to them as people who are mentally handicapped. They are vulnerable and should be given every possible protection when they are called upon to give evidence in our courts.
I am not sure whether the wording of the new clause would allow it, but the same holds true for women complainers in cases involving violent physical or sexual assault. Given that screens have already been used and are in common use—that is what I was told when I visited the sheriff court in Glasgow—has the Minister any evidence of screens being used in rape cases? Do those assisting a complainer in such a case have the right to seek guidance from a judge on the use of screens?
As I said earlier, a woman involved in a rape case is often in an extremely vulnerable state of mind. Such a complainant deserves every protection. That is why I advocate the use of closed circuit television in such cases.
Concealment by way of a screen is at best a poor measure. I think that the Minister said in Committee that the accused person must have sight of the witness when screens are used. I believe that a television monitor will be used, although it can be done by a one-way or two-way mirror, or whatever it is called. That is a reasonable measure, but we should go further and extend the provision to all vulnerable persons.
This is a stage on the way towards offering greater protection to vulnerable witnesses, especially the complainers in rape cases. It is disgraceful that they should

have to suffer defence counsel trawling their sexual histories; the least that they deserve is the use of a screen to hide the perpetrator of a violent assault from them.
The new clause is a means of giving greater protection to people aged 16 or more when they give evidence, but much more needs to be done and I shall return to the matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is unusual for me to participate in these debates. I used to do so in the last decade—I was about to say last century, but it is only a decade although it feels like a century.

Mr. McFall: It looks like it.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was about to congratulate him on moving the new clause, with which I thoroughly agree.
The new clause is very good and the purpose behind it exceptionally good, but it could be negated if people come into contact elsewhere in the sheriff court. They may be screened in the court, but if they happen to bump into each other in the waiting rooms, corridors or anywhere else, the effects of the new clause will be negated. The facilities at sheriff courts are absolutely appalling—especially at the court in Ayr—for people waiting to give evidence and for those accompanying them. There are no arrangements for refreshments and the toilet facilities are dreadful. Witnesses can come into contact with each other and with the accused. All of that is contrary to the effective administration of justice. The excellent new clause would be totally negated by people casually bumping into each other in sheriff courts which have such appalling facilities.
I have had many complaints from witnesses who have been treated appallingly at sheriff courts, particularly Ayr sheriff court, and the same applies elsewhere. Witnesses are often nervous. They may be reluctant to attend and have to be persuaded and encouraged. They need good facilities so as to be assured that they will not bump into people against whom they are about to give evidence.

Dr. Godman: Has my hon. Friend been told by the Scottish Courts Administration whether his local sheriff court is to be renovated in the near future?

Mr. Foulkes: No, I have not. That is part of the problem. The Minister may be able to tell me. I have a great respect for the Minister. He and I have often crossed swords on other occasions in other places, both at university and on the town council. I am sure that he will give a positive and helpful reply to today's debate, particularly to the point that I have raised. It is important.
I know that there is a programme for improving, upgrading and updating court houses throughout Scotland, but progress is too slow and many sheriff court houses are completely inadequate for their purpose. If witnesses are not to be intimidated and if they are to come forward willingly, they must have good facilities and know that they are not likely casually to bump into people against whom they may be giving evidence. I may be widening the scope of the amendment, but the point is relevant. I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) showed rare ingenuity in introducing the nature of the facilities at the


Ayr sheriff court, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, showed your customary tolerance in allowing him to expand upon the matter. I hope that I will be allowed to take advantage of that.
I recently visited the temporary sheriff court in Greenock, within the curtilage of what used to be the Scott Lithgow shipyard. I say without equivocation that the facilities there are a disgrace. I appreciate that the original sheriff court building in Greenock is undergoing a substantial upgrading programme, but to expect justice to be conducted in the circumstances in which it is sought to conduct it in Greenock at the moment is not good enough. I fear, as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made clear, that similar situations are to be found throughout the country.
I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Lochmaddy, but its sheriff court—I see that at least one other hon. Member knows where that court is situated —is wholly inadequate. As the hon. Gentleman properly says, such facilities negate any advantage that might stem either from the new clause or from the legislation in respect of which the new clause is a supplement. Albeit in a roundabout way, there is considerable relevance in what the hon. Gentleman says.
I have always had considerable reservations about the notion that—I put it colloquially, for which I hope I shall be forgiven—one should start by moving the furniture around in the court. We come back to the principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Our courts are public places which people are entitled to visit.
Now that we have accepted the principle that those who are vulnerable by way of age should be given special protection, what conceivable reason is there for not extending it to others who are equally vulnerable, either by reason of age, physical condition or mental capacity.
Therefore, although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism, I hope that we shall have a positive response from the Government, and that even if they are not willing to accept the new clause they will give it serious consideration. Once the principle is ceded, it is difficult to say that others who can be identified as vulnerable should not be entitled to precisely the same protection.

Dr. Godman: When discussing measures which sought to give added protection to vulnerable witnesses in Committee, my hon. Friends and I stressed at all times that in no way did we wish to harm the interests of the accused person.

Mr. Campbell: I understand that. To some extent I must accept that I have lost the argument, but I am now concerned to argue for consistency. The Government have accepted that anyone deemed vulnerable by reason of age should be entitled to protection. If it can be demonstrated that a person is vulnerable by reason of other incapacity, such a person should be entitled to precisely the same protection.
The logic of that is ineluctable and the Minister should accept it, if not within the four corners of the Bill, on some other occasion when the matter is before the House when we may even feel compelled to push the matter to a vote.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to the Scottish Law

Commission's proposals. The Scottish Law Commission recognised that the use of a screen would not always be appropriate. In the case of an adult witness, the protection afforded by the use of video recorder evidence will be available. It will be open to the prosecution or the defence to apply for the use of screens and the court will always consider such a request with the interests of the witness in mind.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not slow to take any opportunity to further the interests of his constituents. There has been a substantial programme of upgrading and rebuilding sheriff courts and particular attention has been given to the need to provide comfortable and sympathetic accommodation for witnesses. The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. I shall make inquiries about the particular position of the sheriff courts at Ayr and Greenock, and I shall write to those hon. Members who have expressed an interest.

Dr. Godman: Will it be possible to use such screens in the temporary sheriff court at Greenock? I am not a lawyer, but that temporary building is a disgrace. I look forward to the day when the original sheriff court will be restored so that cases can be heard there once again.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. As I said, I shall write to the hon. Members about the sheriff courts that they have mentioned.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with his characteristic courtesy. Will he give some consideration to the need to take great care in finding suitable and adequate temporary facilities when a sheriff court is refurbished. I appreciate that there may be geographical constraints. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked whether screens could be used in the temporary court facilities at Greenock. I do not believe they could, because the space there is inadequate. When a temporary court is being established, careful consideration must be given to ensuring that it is adequate for the purpose.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He made an eloquent plea for consistency in the matter; I certainly agree with the principle and have some sympathy for the new clause. However, the amendment would extend the new evidential provisions to witnesses other than children and, as I said when the matter was discussed in Committee, the Government must be satisfied that the provisions for one category of vulnerable witnesses are working well before we can consider extending them to other categories of witnesses.
I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—that a decision to extend any of the provisions that we have introduced for children would be premature until we have been able to evaluate how the provisions are working in practice. I stress the importance of ensuring that any special evidential provisions that are introduced to meet the needs of particular categories of witness are appropriate to their needs. As hon. Members are aware, evidence can currently be taken on commission.
Hon. Members who were present at the full debate on the matter in Committee will recall that I said that there were other means available for hearing evidence by those who may not be able to attend the courts. In the


Government's view those arrangements are sufficient to meet the real concerns of such witnesses. When we have sufficient evidence, we shall assess it and make the necessary proposals.

Mrs. Fyfe: I well recall the Minister's comments on the matter in Committee. We still disagree with him. Surely he does not need to wait for the results of practice with children in courts before he feels able to act for adults over the age of 16 who are perhaps suffering from mental handicap. The two categories are completely separate and because the system works or does not work well with children would prove absolutely nothing about people over the age of 16 who suffer from mental handicap. Will the Minister revise his view on that and accept the advice of those who are accustomed to working with people suffering from such difficulties?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The difficulty is that at present there is no hard evidence that the extension of screening to witnesses other than children would be the best way to minimise the possible distress caused to such witnesses by having to attend court. It is also important to remember the need to achieve a balance between the needs of witnesses and fairness to the accused. However, I am certain that we shall return to the subject when we have evidence, at which time it will be much easier to see a constructive way forward.

Mr. McFall: We are still unhappy at the Government's reply. Ministers say that they will have to wait to see how things work out before deciding. I refer the Minister to the proceedings in Committee. I asked about the issue of unit fines, and the Minister said:
we must be certain that the system is operating successfully in England and Wales."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 3 November 1992; c. 53.].
I did a little detective work and looked at the first draft of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which entered the Lords in July 1991. Clause 41 of that Bill states that the system being introduced would enable the Secretary of State to order that specific courts should operate a unit fines system. However, in his reply to me on 3 November this year, the Minister was not aware that his Government were trying to introduce that very system in that 1991 Bill. That is a precedent, and the Minister will understand our caution and suspicion at being told that we shall have to wait to see how things work out.
Recommendations Nos. 23 and 24 in report No. 125 of the Scottish Law Commission are unequivocal in their description of vulnerable witnesses. That definition is easy to interpret, because it includes
the elderly, the infirm, the sick or the mentally ill".
We do not intend to press the clause to a vote but we urge the Government to bring matters into line so that there is consistency between those under 16 years and those who are over that age.
Perhaps I can be partisan in the fashion of other hon. Members. The conditions in Dumbartonshire sheriff court are not good and I have been pushing the Minister to make a decision on the matter. Will he write to me before Christmas so that I can give my constituents the good Christmas message that we can look forward to a new court in Dumbarton with new and spacious architectural arrangements which will enable the provision of justice to be exemplary?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about Dumbarton sheriff court, but at this stage I cannot give a guarantee about the answer. The new clause is premature because the research project began in October 1991 and since that time the live television link has been used in only eight cases. It is too early to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of the procedure and to take final decisions on extending provisions which will be available for child witnesses who are especially vulnerable.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 6

Intermediate diet

?() For section 337A of the 1975 Act there shall be substituted the following section—

Intermediate diet

337A.—(1) the court shall, in respect of every case which is adjourned for trial, fix a diet (to be known as an intermediate diet) for the purpose of ascertaining—

(a) the state of preparation of the prosecutor and of the accused with respect to their cases; and
(b) whether the accused intends to adhere to the plea of not guilty.

(2) At an intermediate diet, the court may ask the prosecutor and the accused any question for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(3) The accused shall attend an intermediate diet of which he has received intimation or to which he has been cited.

(4) A plea of guilty may be tendered at the intermediate diet; and section 336 of this Act shall apply accordingly.".'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 was almost accepted by default. Perhaps we shall get another opportunity.
New clause 6 is about intermediate trial diets in Scotland. Section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 added a section to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 which provides for the use of intermediate trial diets in cases heard under summary procedure. That experiment has worked very well and the potential benefits of the experiment have been explored. The findings were that a significant reduction in witness attendance at court could be achieved if intermediate diets were held one week in advance of the trial diet. That resulted in a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of accused waiting until the trial day before pleading guilty.
At present there are abuses of the system, especially by defence lawyers, who instruct their clients to wait until the day of the trial. That abuse should be eradicated and the experiment in 1982–83 pointed the way forward, resulting in substantial savings in the time of police and civilian witnesses. Trial diets held four weeks in advance of the trial resulted in fewer accused pleading guilty at the intermediate diet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) turned his attention to the important issue of police and civilian witnesses. He brought the matter to the Government's attention and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie replied dismissively to my hon. Friend some months ago in a pejorative letter. However, my hon. Friend took the matter to the Accounts Commission for Scotland and a report by the Audit Commission on police waiting time


published in October this year verified my hon. Friend's concern. If intermediate trial diets were pursued, police and civilian waiting time would be cut.
During the summer recess, I took the opportunity to meet the chief constable of Strathclyde, in my capacity as shadow home affairs Minister. I asked him about the waste of police time and he said, off the top of his head, that more than 50 per cent. of Strathclyde's overtime budget was spent on court attendance by police; yet in only 2 per cent. of cases were police actually called to give evidence. Police officers have been recalled from their holidays and the overtime budget has been used unnecessarily.
I shall cite as an example Glasgow High Court, which has three courts. Police officers assure me that on a Monday morning more than 100 are at the High Court. An hour later, the number is 40; an hour after that, it is 20. As well as the practice being an abuse, it is a costly exercise. It also has implications for police manning on the streets. Half the number of police who should be on the streets are wasting their time in court. If the Minister talks to police officers, that is what they will tell him. Hamilton town centre had only one policeman on a particular day because all the others were in court. That should not happen.
The Minister may say that the new clause is not technically correct, but my aim is to draw attention to a scandal. I urge him to consider the issue carefully because something must be done. If the 1982–83 experiment was successful, surely that is sufficient precedent for introducing something similar now. We have waited too long for such a provision and the new clause signals our concern. I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to add only a sentence or two to what has been most ably said by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). There is no doubt that a great deal of police time is wasted in court attendance. However, the police are not always entirely innocent—there are some who quite like the notion of overtime.
In my experience as a prosecutor, I came across cases where it was made perfectly clear that sending away from court large numbers of policemen because I thought that they were unnecessary would be rather unpopular. The notion of a day spent talking to their friends while being paid overtime was one that some officers, but not all, found attractive. There is always a risk in relying on anecdotal evidence. Much more fundamental is the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the proper and effective use of police resources being absolutely essential.
Earlier today, during Scottish questions, the Minister said that Strathclyde region was 181 police officers short, and he attributed responsibility for that to the regional council. I must tell him that the consequences of a shortage of 181 officers would be substantially mitigated if far more effective use was made of the time of those officers in position. The need for a proper approach to the problem has never been greater.
The Government protest their desire to do something, but the apoplectic—sometimes justifiable—response of chief constables is that the effectiveness of the forces under their command is being prejudiced by the time officers spend at court. We must take a radical approach if we are to make inroads into the problem. It may involve the Crown being rather more forthcoming about its evidence,

endeavouring to put the defence into the same position with knowledge of the weight of the case against an accused person as the Crown is at the time that it decides to take proceedings. The proposals may appear revolutionary to Crown officials, but if as a consequence there is a much more effective use of police time, and provided that there is nothing contrary to the interests of justice, the proposals must be explored.
My concern about the precise terms of the new clause is that subsection (2) would empower the court to
ask the prosecutor and the accused any question for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above.
That relates to
(a) the state of preparation of the prosecutor and of the accused with respect to their cases; and
(b) whether the accused intends to adhere to the plea of not guilty.
If that power were exercised responsibly, it would not cause difficulty. However, if it were exercised irresponsibly, it could result in the disclosure of information that might be prejudicial to the conduct of a proper defence for the accused.
I would have some difficulty in supporting the new clause in its precise terms, but I have no difficulty in supporting the general thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, who put the matter succinctly and persuasively. I hope that he has persuaded the Minister.

Dr. Godman: I, too, am deeply concerned about the shortage of uniformed police officers in Strathclyde. For some considerable time I have argued that Greenock and Port Glasgow needs another 25 uniformed police officers on the streets to deal with violent crime and other criminal activities. If the number of officers was increased, the crime statistics would show some decline, rather than climbing month after month.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that some police officers liked to sit around spinning yarns with their colleagues in the adjuncts to our courts. That is something that concerns many people. I have a letter from the honorary secretary of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents on precisely that point. It is dated 3 December and is signed by Chief Superintendent Jack Urquhart. I am sure that, if he was here, he would be listening carefully to what hon. Members have to say on the important matter of the waste of police time in court, which the new clause is intended to tackle.
Mr. Urquhart wrote:
At our Executive Meeting held on 2 December members asked me to contact you regarding the report published on 30 November by the Accounts Commission for Scotland. This issue has been of serious concern to the Scottish Police Service for the past ten years due to the enormous amount of police time taken up with court attendance, the vast majority of which is unproductive.
That point has been made during the debate. Mr. Urquhart continued:
Worse than that, the Report shows that the annual cost of police witness duty is now £8 million. Only one in five officers cited actually gives evidence and only 2 per cent. of their time is spent in the witness box.
That complaint was raised by senior police officers referring to the Accounts Commission for Scotland report. The Minister must heed their warnings and misgivings.
The honorary secretary's letter goes on to say:


As you no doubt appreciate with police resources already being scarce, the situation is serious with a tremendous waste of money which could be better spent on operational policing overtime.
The executive committee of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents makes a serious point. We need uniformed police officers on our streets. If they are to work overtime, it will be much more productive if it is spent on the streets than wasted sitting around spinning yarns or chewing the fat in our court buildings.
6 pm
The letter highlights the loss of officers from our streets, which must be an important consideration, and says:
The police service has done as much as it can to organise its own arrangement to minimise abstractions to court by releasing police statements to the defence"—
as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said—
arranging for officers to be on standby for court where possible, improving the quality of police reports, reducing the number of police witnesses in cases".
The new clause deals with some of the problems attendant on officers being called to court. The Accounts Commission for Scotland report says:
Each day 700 police officers attend court to give evidence in criminal cases going to trial but only one in five of these officers actually gives evidence.
That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Whether the Minister accepts the new clause or not, the Government must pay much more serious attention to that wastage of police time, particularly given the growing violence on our streets.
My constituency has suffered a number of murders this year. I shall not say that those murders could have been averted with more officers on the street, but some street or casual crimes could have been avoided were more police officers on the street rather than sitting in the sheriff court or in courts elsewhere.
I should be interested to know how many officers from Greenock had to attend the recent High Court case in Glasgow, which ran for 19 days. The Minister knows the case; it involved the murder of a constituent of mine in Dundaff road in Greenock. Were all those officers called as witnesses? I suspect that they were not and that much overtime money was wasted on their attending that court.
The final paragraph of the report deals with that grievous matter and says:
The administration of justice is a complex matter involving delicate issues and for maintenance of appropriate checks and balances. The Commission recognises that others are more appropriately placed to weigh the current operation of those checks and balances to ensure that the public interest is being safeguarded. This report highlights … a deteriorating picture in regard to police time spent at court on witness duty.
The report says that the position is worsening literally each week. It goes on to say:
It is the Government's wish to provide the public reassurance that flows from having police officers visibly 'on the beat'.
They cannot be on the beat if they are stuck in a court building, knowing in most instances that they will not even be called to give evidence. It has been suggested that that might please some police officers, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of officers of all ranks would rather be doing the job on the street and looking after their local communities.
The last sentence of the report reads:
The findings of this report suggest that this desire"—
placing more police officers visibly on the beat—
is being frustrated by current practices which impact adversely on front line policing resources.
Despite the reservations expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, the new clause makes a valiant attempt to tackle that problem full square, whereas the Government appear to be tackling it only half-heartedly. It is of considerable concern to the Police Federation of Scotland, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in Committee.
The letter from the honorary secretary to the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents shows that the police want answers. The chief superintendents and superintendents in day-to-day control of policing operations want their officers on the streets, not wasting time in court. The Minister should react sensibly, realistically and usefully to the new clause.

Mr. McMaster: I shall be brief, because the case has already been eloquently made by those hon. Members who have spoken. I endorse the amendment. If there are technical difficulties with it, I endorse at least its general thrust.
The subject has been a bee in my bonnet for some months. Until now, I simply had a feeling that a lot of police time was being wasted in Scottish courts, but in the past couple of weeks my suspicion has been backed up by the Accounts Commission, which has expressed its grave concern about the matter.
There are many reasons for the situation. For instance, the citizens charter says that hospital appointments must be staggered throughout the day, rather than all for 9 am; yet the same does not apply to courts, where all the police and witnesses are told to turn up at 9.45 am. Another problem is plea bargaining, with which the amendment deals. Plea bargaining has always gone on and will always go on, but it should not happen at the last minute, as it does now. Police and other witnesses are called to court, but then find that they are not needed that day. That can happen several times. The fact that that problem exists is backed up by the Accounts Commissioner.
I wrote to the Minister of State in another place about that problem some months ago and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to the reply that I received. To say that the Minister of State's answer was dismissive of the problem and of the need for a solution would be an understatement: it is the most unpleasant letter that I have ever received from a Minister. He said that the very idea that there was a problem was facile and unenlightening, but he has been left with egg on his face because the Accounts Commission now says that the problem is one of grave concern. I wonder how a man who is not only a Minister of State but a former Lord Advocate managed to arrive at such a conclusion.
At Scottish Question Time today, the Minister referred to the success of Operation Dove in my constituency, but there have been 12 murders in K division of Strathclyde police this year, and both violent and non-violent crime are increasing. Elderly people are afraid to go out at night, and are now becoming afraid to stay in. That happens throughout Scotland—at the same time as 700 police officers are kept in court on any day, of whom only 140 will be called to give evidence while the rest sit about the court needlessly. On average, 30 per cent. of a day shift of police


officers is not on the streets but in court; yet only 2 per cent. of the time will be spent giving evidence—all at a cost of £8 million.
The police are keen to keep as many officers on the streets as they can, and they go through all sorts of administrative mechanisms to achieve that. One of the methods is to ask police officers to go on the beat on their day off and to fund that through the overtime budget. If Operation Dove was a success, it was because police officers were on the streets of Paisley when they were needed, late on Friday and Saturday nights. Instead of being spent on such measures, the overtime budget is spent dragging police officers out of Greenock, Dumbarton and Glasgow to police the streets of Paisley.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while Operation Dove was a great success in the Paisley area, it was only a temporary measure? He rightly said that this was achieved only by taking acting officers from other areas, thus leaving those areas vulnerable. No new funds were found to finance the operation and no more officers were employed. As we have heard, officers were redeployed in courts when they were desperately needed on the streets. We need a permanent solution to the problem, with more policemen permanently on the streets, more policemen employed and more money for the regional council. The council has been putting civilians into stations to do administrative work, thereby releasing officers to active duty, but we must stop playing about with figures and find that permanent solution.

Mr. McMaster: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The trouble with projects such as Operation Dove, as opposed to permanent solutions such as that offered by the new clause, is that if police officers are taken from other divisions to police a problem in Paisley, it will achieve that result, but then police officers from Paisley will be sent elsewhere and the problem will return. The new clause offers a more sensible solution.

Mr. McFall: Will my hon. Friend accept that those are the comments of the chief constable of Strathclyde? Furthermore, there are different social patterns now, with, for example, late night dancing in discos. I speak from experience, as I have teenage children who knock me up at 5 o'clock on a Sunday morning because they have lost their keys. As more young people are on the streets at that time of the morning, my chief superintendent has to deploy his police officers then, thereby denuding the force operating during the day. Taking such issues into consideration, my hon. Friend is correct, and the experience in Paisley is mirrored in Dumbarton and elsewhere.

Mr. McMaster: That is correct. The chief constable can only deploy the available resources. Every time we write to the Minister about a police matter, we are told that it is for the chief constable, but if the only solution that the Government can offer is to take police officers from one division and put them into another, we shall never achieve anything. That is simply chasing the problem from one place to another.
I agree with almost all that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, but I

do not agree with his remark that sometimes police like being in court because that enhances their overtime payments. I have spoken to police officers who are fed up with the amount of time they spend hanging around courts. I rather suspect that solicitors also like the extra time that they spend in court.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not a solicitor, so I cannot answer for that profession. I should not like it to be thought either by the hon. Gentleman or by the House that I made a blanket charge in respect of police officers. I hoped that I had made it clear that, on occasion, from time to time, officers were not unamenable to the idea of spending time in court, on overtime, waiting to give evidence, rather than being out doing their other work. I suspect that that is true only of a small proportion of them, and I should not like too much significance to be attached to it.

Mr. McMaster: I accept that. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted that I took great care to say "solicitors" and not "QCs", because those of us in the Whips office have to be careful about making accusations against Scottish QCs. I intend to hang on to my job at least until Christmas.
The new clause offers a partial solution to the problem of crime in Scotland because it would help to get police officers back on the streets, where people want them to be. If we did a survey tomorrow of the issues that people think affect them most in Scotland, crime would be in the top five. More and more, people are recognising that there has been a 600 per cent. increase in crime since the Government came to power and that a crime happens every 30 seconds, and they want something done about it. —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) laughs. Perhaps he suspects that I have managed to stay in order but yet to make a political speech—as if I would. Crime affects all Scotland, and I commend the new clause to the House because it offers a partial solution to that problem.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A large number of points have been made, but the general view has been that far too much police time is spent in court and that it is extremely desirable that that time should be reduced. Procurators fiscal are under instructions to make every effort to achieve that purpose whenever possible.
It is a fundamental police duty to attend court to give evidence, but this should be done efficiently with officers spending as little time as possible away from operational duties. We want to make the best use of valuable police resources. The report by the Commission on Local Authority Accounts in Scotland published helpful indicators as to how valuable resources might be put to best use. It is encourgaging to note that measures are already in hand which should contribute significantly to reducing the time that witnesses have to spend at court.
The report comments on police duty rosters. That matter is being considered within the context of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards being conducted by Sir Patrick Sheehy.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. MacFall) mentioned the 1982–83 experiment, which he said was successful. Although 50 per cent. of the cases went off at intermediate diet, most of those cases were adjourned, or


a warrant was taken for the arrest of the accused. This meant that the witnesses had to come back on a subsequent occasion. Fiscals are now giving copies of police statements to the defence, and there is an experiment in Paisley in doing exactly the same with civilian witness statements. It is hoped that this and other initiatives, coupled with intermediate diets, might assist the position. What is certain is that the provisions of schedule 3 on business evidence will be a great help to prosecutors in avoiding the citing of witnesses who do not speak to the essentials of a case.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said that plea bargaining should be kept to a minimum. Ideally, the defence solicitor would approach the Crown with an offer for a plea at an early stage. However, they are dependent on their clients' instructions and, regrettably, I have to say from my experience that often instructions are forthcoming only once it is known that prosecution witnesses are present and the case can therefore be proved. I wish that it were different, but that is how it is.
There is already a permissive power to hold intermediate diets before summary trials. It was introduced by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. However, the new procedure fell into disuse in most courts in Scotland because it was found to be ineffective in fulfilling its purpose of identifying adjournments and guilty pleas in advance. I agree with hon. Members that a preliminary procedure such as this has the potential to secure improvements in these areas, but plainly the existing practice has not worked. Accordingly, it would not be sensible to make an ineffective procedure mandatory. That would simply waste more court time and result in a worse service to the public.
However, I can offer hope of improvement. The Scottish Courts Administration is supporting a review of court programming by groups under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Nicholson and Sheriff Cox. Part of the review involves experiments to establish an effective form of intermediate diet within the existing legislation. I am sure that the courts themselves will wish to make use of their existing powers. One court, Airdrie, has already reintroduced intermediate diets as a result of a successful experiment. Moreover, we shall be considering in the light of the conclusions of the review whether improvements can be made in the statutory framework which will result in intermediate diets fulfilling their purpose more successfully, but any proposals arising from that will be for another Bill.
I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause and to wait until the review is completed.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware of the concern of practitioners about this issue. Only a few weeks ago, Ian Hamilton QC expressed great concern about it. There was a photograph of him in the Glasgow Herald in full motorbike gear, saying that the system is crumbling. I am sure that his comments are echoed in many other parts of the Scottish legal system. As a result of his statement, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions asking how many cases involved plea bargaining. The Minister's rather unhelpful reply was that answering the question would involve disproportionate cost.
The Minister acknowledges that the system is not working. I do not believe that a committee comprising a sheriff principal and a sheriff gets to the heart of the

problem. The Minister will know that a criminal justice commission in England and Wales has already reported. Why should not Scotland have such a commission to look into all these issues? It could examine all the deficiencies of the legal system. Setting up such a commission would be universally welcomed in legal circles.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is much more sensible to go ahead with the review, which will report before long. At that stage we can see what further measures are needed. New clause 6 would make mandatory a procedure which, so far, the courts have found ineffective. We are trying to devise a more effective intermediate diet procedure, so this is not the time to introduce a mandatory requirement.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

POWER TO RELEASE PRISONERS ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(1A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are no compassionate grounds which would justify the release of a person on licence he shall inform that person of his decision and the reasons for that decision as soon as practicably possible.'.
The amendment would add a new subsection to clause 3, requiring the Secretary of State to give reasons for a decision not to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds. The clause allows the Secretary of State to release a prisoner if he is satisfied that there are compassionate reasons for so doing. If he refuses to release him, the prisoner has no means of discovering the reasons for the refusal and no means of requiring the decision to be reviewed. The amendment is necessary to make the Secretary of State accountable for his decision.
I remember a Labour party working group, under the auspices of Lord Macaulay of Bragar, looking into the criminal justice system and asking prisoners about their anxieties. Their main concern was not their physical conditions, although often they were not up to standard: what they were worried about was the lack of communication in the prison between governor, prison officers and prisoners. Prisoners feel vulnerable and isolated, and if the Secretary of State is not obliged to give reasons, that will serve only to heighten prisoners' fears.
It is surely not asking too much for the Secretary of State to be made accountable for his decisions in the form of a written response. The Minister remarked in Committee that the giving of reasons by the Secretary of State should be a "matter of good practice". We maintain that it should be enshrined in statute.
The suggested remedy—of a judicial review in the event that the Secretary of State does not provide reasons—is unduly cumbersome. I invite the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on this. This remedy would be time-consuming and expensive. It would be much more economical and efficient if the Secretary of State were made to give his reasons in writing.

Dr. Godman: I support the amendment. If a decision is made to reject an application for release on licence on compassionate grounds, the reason for that decision


should be conveyed to the applicant as quickly as possible. There is nothing worse for prisoners than being kept waiting for weeks before hearing about such decisions.
Will the Minister assure me that these decisions will be conveyed to prisoners as quickly as possible? I know that decisions by the parole board used to take an interminable time to reach prisoners. I know that there are difficulties —the massive work load imposed on members of the board, and the work undertaken by the local review committees—but I have known of prisoners waiting for more than two months before parole board decisions reached them. There should be no delays in matters of this kind.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When one man holds the power of liberty over the life of another, that power must surely be exercised reasonably, responsibly and with sensitivity. If the Secretary of State concludes that an applicant for release on licence cannot be released on compassionate grounds, it is only right and proper that the person, he or she, whose liberty is being denied should be told why. It is a simple proposition needing no elaboration. The Government claim to be in favour of more openness, so I hope that they will find it easy to accept.

Mr. Hood: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that the amendment is not meant as a criticism of the incumbent of the office of Secretary of State; it is designed to make the decisions of the Secretary of State more publicly accountable.
I am concerned about the way in which the powers relating to licences and their withdrawal have been exercised. I do not wish to repeat all that I said on Second Reading, but the case of one of my constituents is worth considering.
George Beatty was released after 13 years in prison, but six years later he was pulled back into prison to serve the rest of his life sentence on the basis of a spurious allegation that he had kicked a social worker. When the case went to court, that accusation was withdrawn, but was replaced with a charge of breach of the peace and, lo and behold, George Beatty was pulled back into prison. It would be awful and disgraceful for that to happen to anyone, but that case is even more disgraceful because everyone, except someone high up in the judiciary, believes that that man is innocent.
On Second Reading, I spoke with some hesitation about this case because I was concerned about the sensitivities of the family of the victim who George Beatty was found guilty of murdering some 13 years ago. However, I have now been informed that the family do not believe that he murdered their daughter. Compelling reasons now suggest that there was no evidence to convict him of that crime.
I am sure that the reasons for the conviction will come out in the future. I hope that that will happen soon, because, until then, George Beatty will be in prison in Edinburgh. His case should concern not only parliamentarians but everyone in our country, because what happened to him could happen to anyone. That innocent man was convicted of a crime, yet the evidence shows that

he could not have committed it. The judicial system has closed ranks on him and he is now faced with the full power of the establishment.
I hope that, in the end, justice will be done, because there is no reason why George Beatty should be kept in prison. I hope that the Secretary of State will allow his appeal to be heard quickly. When the opportunity comes to examine all the evidence, I am absolutely convinced that it will be found that George Beatty was wrongly convicted and imprisoned. For that reason, I support the spirit of the amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that I do not propose to discuss in detail individual cases that have been the subject of meetings between him and the Minister of State. The issue of the recall of released life prisoners is not strictly relevant to clause 3, and the issue of any possible miscarriage of justice is even less pertinent to the debate. However, I will draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
I can assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that decisions on compassionate release will be communicated without delay. Normally the Secretary of State is limited by the parole board's timetable of meetings, but clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make a decision without consulting the board in cases of urgency. That will happen as necessary.
As I made clear earlier in our proceedings, I am fully in accord with the spirit underlying the amendment. Our aim, as I indicated then, is that every prisoner should be kept fully informed of any decisions which affect him, and should have the reasons for such decisions explained to him. I suspect that, when a similar amendment was suggested in Committee, I may not have made the Government's policy sufficiently clear.
If a prisoner puts forward arguments in favour of his or her compassionate release, the Secretary of State will consider them very carefully in the light of medical, social work and prison reports. If the Secretary of State concludes that compassionate release is unjustified, when he informs the prisoner of that decision, he will state his reasons for it. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with those reasons, he or she may make further representations to the Secretary of State. If there is a change in the prisoner's health or circumstances, the Secretary of State will be prepared to review the case again.
I mentioned the question of judicial review in Committee, but judicial review will of course be a last resort for a prisoner who has exhausted all the administrative avenues of recourse. Our intention is to give reasons administratively when the decision is communicated to the prisoner. This will enable the prisoner to question the reasons if he or she wishes to do so and recourse to the courts would—as I said—be available if the Secretary of State appeared to be acting unlawfully in refusing release. Against this background, the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that it will not be pressed.

Mr. McFall: In Committee, the Minister was not agreeable to our amendment, because we asked for the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision. Given what the Minister has just said, however, is it the case that the Secretary of State will give reasons to the prisoner and that therefore there will be no need for an application for a judicial review? Such an application is made when the


Secretary of State does not provide the reasons for his refusal to release a prisoner, but it now appears that the Secretary of State will provide those reasons. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, the Minister is accepting the spirit of our amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The reasons will be given. As I said in Committee, in the previous Parliament I had to look at one case extremely carefully. I wanted to release the prisoner in question, but when I looked at all the circumstances—he had killed a young child—I did not feel that the risk to the public justified his release.
In some cases, the Secretary of State may be considering the release of a prisoner because that prisoner is very ill. However, he may not know how ill he is and the Secretary of State may not necessarily want to inform him, at an early stage, of the extent of that illness.
I can assure hon. Members that reasons for a decision will be given, so the spirit of the amendment will be met.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not want to interfere with the sense of agreement that is now evident between members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that one must be careful to point out that if an application for judicial review is successful that does not have the effect of producing reasons for a decision; it has the effect of quashing the Minister's decision. In other words, one is then back in the position that existed the moment before the Minister took that decision. The furnishing of reasons is separate and distinct, but it may be—this is where agreement has broken out—that the furnishing of reasons may, of itself, be enough to dissuade people from embarking upon the more complicated procedure of judicial review.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

PERSONS DETAINED UNDER MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2 in page 5, line 11, leave out
'a report is furnished in respect of him under subsection (9) below'
and insert
'an application for admission under Section 18 of this Act has been approved by the sheriff and made in accordance with Part V of this Act.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 20 to 35.
No. 4, in page 5, leave out lines 36 to 46.
Government amendment No. 14.

Mr. McFall: The amendment would ensure that clause 4 is amended so that the regular procedures under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 apply to detainees under the Immigration Act 1971.
We tabled the amendments for a number of reasons, but our principal concern is the provision for continued

detention following the expiry of sentence. We see no reason why the normal procedures under section 18 should not apply in such circumstances, operating under the same criteria and offering the protection of an application to a sheriff. The proposals contain broader criteria, and only a right of appeal to the sheriff.
Our anxieties would become crucial in, for instance, the case of a person with language or mental difficulties who had been detained under immigration provisions. Such a person would be unlikely to understand that he or she had a right of appeal, and would surely be dealt with more appropriately under the procedure governing a section 18 application to the sheriff.
The recent statutory amendments to detention procedures should eliminate concern about transitional difficulties on expiry of sentence, and thus strengthen the argument that the normal procedure should apply following expiry.
We were not convinced by the arguments advanced by the Minister in Committee.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to concede that, when a prisoner has been transferred to a mental hospital under both a transfer direction and a restriction direction, and when the date has arrived on which that prisoner would otherwise have been released from prison, the person concerned should from that point on be treated in exactly the same way as a person who has been admitted to hospital under civil rather than criminal procedures. Indeed, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I have made much the same point in relation to clause 4 at earlier stages. I would, however, be reluctant to go as far as is proposed in amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
It should be borne in mind that the provisions that we are considering tend to relate to only a small number of longer-term prisoners who require to be transferred to hospital because of serious mental disorder. Where a prisoner is serving a short sentence, or has only a short period of a longer sentence still to serve on the date on which he is transferred to hospital, it is unlikely that a restriction direction will be made. Where the prisoner's mental disorder is not such as to require long-term treatment, it is unlikely that he will be detained in hospital for very long, or that the responsible medical officer will consider that continued detention in hospital is necessary.
What is envisaged in amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 therefore seems somewhat unrealistic. The person concerned may have been detained in hospital for several years, and may in that time have made one or more unsuccessful appeals to the sheriff to be discharged. At the time in question, it will appear evident to all concerned—including the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland—that the person's continued detention in hospital will be necessary for a further period.
Finally, the patient himself may not wish to contest the grounds for his continued detention. Nevertheless, it is proposed that there should be a formal application to the sheriff to obtain authority for that continued detention, as though the patient were being admitted direct from the community.

Dr. Godman: When a person is transferred to a mental hospital, will the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland maintain a monitoring role? Will the Minister also assure us that he is entirely confident that no such persons who are detained in mental hospitals anywhere in


Scotland would have been released long ago if they had stayed in prison for the duration of their sentences? May we have an assurance that no such person has been detained for longer than his original prison sentence?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall have to check on the second point; it is possible that a person has remained in a mental hospital because he has become very ill. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can tell him that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland will have the monitoring role to which he referred.
I think that I can reassure the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) about Immigration Act detainees. In their case, subsections (9) and (10) of new section 74 will not apply, and an application under section 18 of the 1984 Act will be necessary to secure their continued detention.
In my view, there is no need to involve the sheriff unless a patient wishes to contest the grounds of his continued detention. Provision must, of course, be made for the patient to have that opportunity, and such provision is made in lines 42 to 46 on page 5. The effect of those words is that a patient whose detention in hospital is continued under subsections (9) and (10) has the right to appeal to the sheriff at any time during the following six months —that being the period for which the authority for his detention is renewed.
In the light of that, I do not think that anything would be achieved by amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 except more and unnecessary work for the sheriff and for solicitors representing patients. There is, however, a reasonable change which could be made, and which I am happy to propose to meet the purpose of the amendments to some extent.
6.45 pm
I think that we all agree that, when the day arrives on which a transferred prisoner would have been released from prison, there should thereafter be no distinction between him and other patients who have been detained with the sheriff's approval. It may be said that the existing provisions do not quite achieve that result, because they provide that, on the substitution of fresh authority for his detention, the patient is to be treated as if he had been admitted in pursuance of a hospital order. That would, in effect, mean a continuing distinction between the patient concerned and others who are admitted in pursance of an application to the sheriff. Government amendment No. 14 is intended to remove that distinction.
I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that I seek to take on board the point of their amendments as far as I can, and that they will support amendment No. 14 rather than pressing amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his assurances. None the less, I submit that the notional right of appeal is not the same as the procedure under section 18 of the 1984 Act. I feel that the difference in character between the court's scrutiny under section 18 and an appeal to the sheriff should be recognised. In view of the Minister's positive response to the spirit of our amendment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 38, leave out from 'had' to ?; but' in line 41 and insert

?,on the date on which the restriction direction ceased to have effect, been admitted to the hospital in pursuance of an application for admission'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 14

SUPERVISED RELEASE OF SHORT-TERM PRISONERS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 15, leave out from 'with' to 'for' in line 16 and insert—

'(1) such requirements as are specified in the order; and
(ii) such requirements as that officer may reasonably specify,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may take amendment No. 5, in page 12, line 38, after 'person', insert
'and if requested to do so by that person, to his legal representative, if any,'.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As originally drafted, the provisions in clause 14 would have obliged a person subject to a supervised release order to comply with such requirements as are specified in the order by the court and, subsequently, by the supervising officer.
I was happy to accept an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) which inserted the word "reasonable" as a qualification in respect of such requirements. I still believe that all the requirements specified in or by virtue of a supervised release order should be reasonable; I am now persuaded, however, that a statutory reference to reasonableness is necessary only in relation to requirements specified by the supervising officer.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill for drawing attention to the matter. I hope that she and her hon. Friends will be satisfied that what we now propose accords with the spirit of the amendment that she moved in Committee.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his letter to me about this point, dated 12 November 1992. He has written to me regularly about the Bill, and I have found all his letters helpful.
We intend to press amendment No. 5, because we think that a solicitor should be provided with a copy of the supervised released order. In Committee, the Minister argued that the clerk of the court could not send a copy of the order to a prisoner's solicitor as a matter of course, because if a client wanted a solicitor to obtain a copy, he could
make that clear to the relevant authorities."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 5 November 1992, c. 78.]
That is the purpose of the amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Dr. Godman: I have a brief question about amendment No. 10. Can a person who challenges a reasonable requirement that is laid upon him by a probation officer obtain legal advice? I appreciate that a social worker or probation officer must be sensible and reasonable when imposing requirements on someone who is released under licence, but has the person any right of appeal? I do not recall that question being answered in Committee.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should first answer the question about amendment No. 5. I listened carefully to


the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and I read with interest the explanation for the amendment that was sent to me by the Law Society of Scotland. I have every sympathy with solicitors whose clients fail to keep in touch with them, but I regret to say that the amendment would not help and I believe it to be unnecessary.
So far as I am aware, solicitors have no difficulty in obtaining copies of papers that the clerk of court is required to send to their clients; they merely have to ask. That arrangement applies to a vast range of orders and other papers. It would not be wise to insert a statutory provision in relation to one kind of order in isolation.
The point that the Law Society has in mind is that, by receiving a copy of the supervised release order, the solicitor will find out which local authority or justices have been designated for the purposes of the order. That is not so. The designation of a local authority or justices for the purposes of the order is to be a matter for the Secretary of State shortly before the prisoner is released under clause 14(4). The order will give no hint of where the prisoner intends to reside after he is released.
Since amendment No. 5 would not assist solicitors, I suggest that it should not be pressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

REVOCATION OF LICENCE

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 16, line 26, after 'he', insert 'and his legal representative'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 7, in page 16, line 31, at end insert—
?(3A) Where the Secretary of State has made a reference to the Parole Board in terms of subsection (3) above he shall inform the person recalled under subsection (1)(a)(i) who makes representations under subsection (2) above or is recalled under subsection (1)(a)(ii) above of the reference to the Parole Board and that he and his legal representatives have the right to make representations to the Parole Board in respect of the recall.'.

Mr. McFall: Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would make two changes to clause 17. Amendment No. 6 would ensure that a recalled prisoner may make representations through his solicitor, and amendment No. 7 would ensure that the Secretary of State informs a recalled person about a reference to the parole board and about his or her right to make representations to the board.
Clause 17 establishes a regime for the revocation of a licence and recall to prison. Revocation and recall can take place in respect of long-term or life prisoners if the parole board has made such a recommendation or if the Secretary of State considers it necessary in the public interest. The prisoner has a right to make representations to the Secretary of State and our amendment provides that the representations may also be made by the recalled prisoner's solicitor. The Secretary of State is obliged to refer certain cases to the parole board under clause 17(3). It is possible that the prisoner will not be aware of such a reference. The amendment obliges the Secretary of State to inform the prisoner about the reference and to ensure that he knows that he can be represented at the board.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was aware in Committee that I had not fully persuaded the hon.

Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the amendments are unnecessary. I am happy to have this further opportunity to explain why I believe that to be so.
The amendments appear to reflect some misunderstanding of what happens when a prisoner who is released on licence is recalled to custody, especially as regards the purpose of referral to the parole board and the time scale involved. The purpose of referral is to give the board an opportunity to consider the circumstances that led to the recall and the question of re-release. The board may decide that the prisoner should not be re-released. Alternatively, it may decide that the prisoner should be released immediately. In the latter case, the Secretary of State has no option but to re-release. In the interests of the prisoner, referral to the board is effected as soon as possible. In practice, cases are usually referred to the board between two and four weeks after recall, depending on the date of the board's next meeting and the time that the prisoner requires to make representations.
The statutory requirements in clause 17(2) is that, on his return to prison, the prisoner be informed of the reasons for his recall and that he has the right to make written representations to the Secretary of State. I accept that some prisoners may need to have it explained to them that the right to make representations does not preclude them from making such representations to a third party such as a solicitor. I assure the House that a prisoner who is recalled will be fully informed of his rights and of the assistance that is available to him. Amendment No.6 is therefore unnecessary.
Representations made to the Secretary of State by the prisoner or by anyone else on the prisoner's behalf are automatically included in the dossier of papers referred to the board. There is therefore no need for separate representations to be made to the board, and any requirement for such separate representations would only delay the board's consideration of a case.
I hope that that explanation will persuade the hon. Member for Dumbarton that the intentions behind the amendments are founded on a misunderstanding of the recall procedure and that the rights of a recalled prisoner are adequately protected.

Mr. McFall: In the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

THE PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 18, line 26, at end insert—
'; and
(d) requiring the Board to deal with cases within such time limits as the Secretary of State may prescribe.'.
The Minister knows that we had a worthy debate on this issue in Committee. We are mindful of the fact that the Secretary of State may make rules for the proceedings of the parole board, but the amendment would permit those rules to include provisions regarding the time that the board may take to reach a decision. In the past, the board has sometimes taken too long to reach a decision. Paragraph 10 of the board's 1991 report says:
the Board has expressed concern about the time required to complete the review of life sentence cases. The Board is


therefore very pleased to note that steps have been taken by the Department to reduce the time to around 10 months for the completion of reviews.
I was grateful for that, but 10 months, which is quite reasonable, could become a year or two years. Therefore, we believe that for the procedure to be efficient it must be effective. There is need for a time limit on the board's decisions and it should be written into the Bill. I know that the Minister agreed with the spirit of the amendment that we moved in Committee and agreed to reconsider the matter. This amendment brings the issue before the House again for further ministerial thought.

Dr. Godman: Although I support the amendment, I shall ask the Minister a few questions which have been prompted by observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who referred to the time taken to deal with cases.
7 pm
Has the Minister reached a decision about the board and its modus operandi since the Committee stage? Has he, for example, any proposals to increase the number of its members? When I can catch his ear, may I ask him whether there have been any fresh retirements from the board or appointments to it since we met in Committee? Have any existing members of the board been reappointed?
In view of the remarks made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and the similar comments that he made in Committee, is additional assistance to be given to officials who serve the board by way of more advanced means of dealing with the vast amount of paperwork which passes through the board's hands?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am sure that the necessary assistance will be given to officials, because I envisage that there will be more work, certainly for social workers, arising out of the Bill. I may be given further information, but I am not aware of any vacancies at the moment. The comments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton will be borne in mind.
I am glad to be able to say that some helpful information has now been passed to me to the effect that my right hon. Friend has recently reappointed Mrs. Megan Casserly but decided not to reappoint Mr. Denis Rice. Sir Hugh Byatt and Mrs. Morris are demitting office this year. That is the up-to-date information, and I am glad that I was able to pass that on within a few moments of admitting that I was not aware of the most recent facts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Dr. Godman: I offer my compliments to the two members of the board who have recently retired, despite some less than helpful observations made about one of them by my hon. Friends. I believe that all the members of the parole board perform a valuable public duty, which should not be overlooked by hon. Members or by members of the public. I am delighted that Mrs. Megan Casserly, a distinguished social work manager, has been reappointed. Mr. Joe Scott is now chairman of the board. I said that he was a member of a large Lanarkshire mining family, but I believe that his family was involved in the steel industry in Lanarkshire.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Having seen the parole board in operation, I am aware that it does an enormous amount of work and that its cases require a great deal of study and reading.
The amendment was buried under others in Committee, so I am glad that we have been able to give it a second hearing on its own because it gives me the opportunity to explain why it is unnecessary.
In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that it was difficult to understand whether clause 20(4)(b) and the amendment meant the same thing or had different meanings. It is a question of interpretation, but it is not necessary to require the parole board to complete its consideration of a case within a period specified simply by length. The important factor is not how long the board takes to consider a case but when it completes its consideration in relation to the date on which the prisoner first becomes eligible for parole.
If a determinant sentence prisoner is eligible for parole on, say, 1 April next year, all the necessary consideration and procedures must be completed so that the prisoner can be told before 1 April whether he is to be released on parole then, later or not at all. The review process begins about five months before what is known as the prisoner's parole eligibility date. The board sets deadlines for the submission of papers to enable it to meet the automatic deadline which is established in each case for the parole eligibility date.
The board usually requires that the cases of determinant sentence prisoners should be referred to it at least six weeks before the date on which the prisoner becomes eligible for parole. That gives the board sufficient time in which to make a recommendation and for a favourable recommendation to be considered by the Secretary of State and acted on if the prisoner is to be released on or shortly after the date on which he becomes eligible for parole.
The board is an extremely efficient body and, like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I pay tribute to the work of its participants. I am not aware of any criticism of its record in meeting the deadlines imposed on it in respect of determinant sentence prisoners.
Different considerations apply to life sentence prisoners. In such cases, there is no need to impose a specific time limit on the parole board, because that would not help to accelerate what is inevitably a fairly lengthy process. The board itself has previously criticised the time taken in other parts of that process—consultation with the judiciary and consideration by the Secretary of State—but strenuous efforts have been made in recent years to achieve a speedier throughput of cases, and sustained progress has been made. The maximum time for reference of life sentence cases to the parole board has been reduced to 10 months from the date of initiation of the review, and we aim to improve on that wherever possible.
In response to the hon. Member for Dumbarton, I must point out that the Bill already enables the Secretary of State to make rules requiring cases to be dealt with at prescribed times. Nothing more is required, and the amendment would not achieve any desirable result in that limits specified by length of time would not be helpful in this context. I hope that my explanation has made that clear, and that the amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his explanation. As he knows, the spirit of the amendment is to reduce the time taken for the reviews. I hope that the Minister will bear our comments in mind and that, in practice, the time will be reduced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

PLACE OF CONFINEMENT OF PRISONERS

Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 13, at end add—
'(4) In determining which prison a prisoner should be allocated to, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to the prison by the prisoner's family.'.
The Minister will remember our discussion in Committee. I thank him for the detailed response which he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in the past few days. He kindly let us all have a copy of that reply.
In his reply he stated that he had already introduced a scheme for long-term prisoners which became operative last July. It means that
prisoners serving sentences of more than 2 years are given the opportunity to choose, subject to the availability of places, among a number of establishments offering appropriate levels of security.
He also said that there were opportunities for prisoners who are not considered dangerous to be considered for home leave. However, he has so far rejected legislation to enforce what our amendment calls for.
He set out his reasons in his letter. He said that the current distribution of establishments and
the need to hold remands, males, young offenders and females separately means that it is … not a practical proposition to meet a requirement of nearness to family".
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we are asking only that he "shall have regard" to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to his family. We are far from suggesting that that is the only criterion worth considering. We agree with the Minister that a move to medium-security or open conditions may be of great benefit to the prisoner, and that it may be the right time for a prisoner to move to a less secure establishment. That might have the effect of taking the prisoner further away from his family.
However, we also suggest that in many cases, prisoners might benefit more from a move to a more open prison if in the first place they had the encouragement and support that a family could give through being close to the prison. We recognise that the distribution of prisons is not so convenient that there could be one available in half an hour's bus ride from anywhere in Scotland, but we suggest that, given the current placing of prisons, account should be taken of that difficulty.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that, if people in prison, whether male or female, have access to those near and dear to them, whoever they may be, that can only help them to get back into society, to give up the crimes for which they have been imprisoned in the first place and to restore them to decent society. Having family back-up maintained throughout long imprisonment must surely be valuable.
We agree with the Minister that the family are not necessarily those with immediate marital or blood

relations. The problem of definition can easily be resolved. What is wrong with asking the prisoner himself or herself to name the people with whom he or she feels there is a close relationship? The list must not, of course, be over-extensive.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and I am sure that all hon. Members here understand it. This weekend I was concerned with the case of George Beatty. Although innocent, he was convicted, served a prison sentence of 13 years and is now back inside. He obviously does not have a wife. He has only a mother who lives on a state pension. The Department of Social Security is refusing assistance to allow her to visit her son, who is in prison after having been wrongly convicted. Surely that supports what my hon. Friend says.

Mrs. Fyfe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that many people are in prison whose home circumstances are very impoverished. Their families have little money and cannot afford long journeys to visit them. Pensioners and people living on income support are especially badly placed in that regard. That is one of the reasons why we are appealing for legislation to ensure that such circumstances are taken into account.
The actions of the Department of Social Security are not, of course, the Minister's business, but we should take account of the realities in framing legislation. It is not only the length of the journey that is a problem, but the cost of the journey can put it beyond the pockets of so many families. Whether the person involved is the prisoner's mother, wife, partner or simply close friend is irrelevant. The important point is that the person who visits is someone to whom the prisoner feels close and someone from whose close contact he or she would benefit.
We called earlier for severer sentences in some circumstances, but we should never forget that a long term in prison is a drastic thing to happen to anybody. We want to try to get people to join the community again and to give up whatever crimes have put them in prison in the first place. Keeping in contact with those whom they hold near and dear will surely only help.

Mr. Gallie: I want to rectify a great wrong. In Committee, I was the only hon. Member to speak out against the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill. At that time, the Minister appeared sympathetic to it and I was critical of him for being so. I was critical because I felt that it was unnecessary to add a factor that was already considered by the authorities when a person was convicted. It is part of the process, and a sympathetic approach is taken.
I felt at that time that to legislate would mean that there was a mandatory requirement which could cause problems, because prisoners could see such a requirement as a right and would look to it as a principal justification for going to a particular location. The real reason why individuals are in prison is the protection of the public. That must be the overriding factor.
The question of the prison to which a convicted person goes could be considered, but it should not be legislated for and it should not be a mandatory requirement. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has gone back on his original comments in Committee, and I hope that he sticks to his present view.

Dr. Godman: I part company with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to some extent. When people are in prison, an immense burden is often placed on the shoulders of their families in terms of travel to and from prison for visits.

Mr. Gallie: indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Anyone visiting Shotts prison has considerable difficulty getting to it from the centre of Shotts. If the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, he should at least offer some solace to the families of prisoners in those circumstances. I fully accept that there are often practical difficulties that prevent the transfer of a prisoner to a prison close to his or her home.
Some time ago, I wrote to the Minister asking for a constituent, who is serving 12 years in Perth, to be transferred to Greenock. His mother, an elderly, disabled person who is living on social security, told me that she simply could not travel to and from Perth. I do not want to identify more closely where she lives in my constituency. I asked the Minister whether he would consider such a transfer on compassionate grounds, although not for the man in question, who deserves every day of the sentence imposed on him for the crime that he committed.
However, it seems that there are establishments closer to my constituency than the one in Perth. I accept that there are difficulties about Greenock because it is a prison designated for short-term prisoners, although there are two or three prisoners there who are serving immensely long sentences.
The Minister could take measures that would make life easier for the families of prisoners rather than for the prisoners themselves. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) stressed the need to take account of the prisoners' concerns.
Not so long ago, a constituent of mine came to see me with a request that her son be transferred closer to the lower Clyde. Unwittingly, I simply accepted that that was also her son's wish. I then received an indignant letter from the laddie concerned saying that he did not want to move to Greenock, not because of its Member of Parliament, but because he wanted to keep away from his family. I had a rather difficult interview with his mother afterwards. The interests of the prisoner must have primacy. The Minister can improve matters. I have asked a number of times for the creation of a visitors' committee at Greenock. I know that I am straying out of line, and I shall not expand the point further. However, in terms of controlling the inevitable tensions and turbulences in our prisons, the Government must show some concern for the issues arising directly from the amendment.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was trying to make. The system already allows people such as him to write or make representations to the Minister on behalf of a prisoner. The system tends to treat applicants sympathetically and, where possible, meet their demands. I am sugesting that that is already happening and should not be a mandatory requirement.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically courteous intervention. I have,

perhaps, more experience of such matters than some hon. Members, as it appears that a depressingly large number of my constituents are at present incarcerated in prison.

Mr. Gallie: It might affect the hon. Gentleman's majority.

Dr. Godman: There are not enough of them to affect my majority at the next election. If they were all released tomorrow and there was an election a month later—for which I devoutly pray—it would not affect my not insubstantial majority.
It is a serious matter, particularly for elderly women who exist on social security, and who find it enormously difficult to travel to, for example, that appallingly grim place at Peterhead—all prisons are grim, but that must be the grimmest of the lot in Scotland—or to Saughton in Edinburgh. They have to suffer the indignity of appealing for funds from the local benefits agency, as we are now supposed to call it. I believe that, in many cases, the families of prisoners would benefit enormously if the prisoners were not held so far from home.
I think that Greenock prison is for short-term prisoners —those serving up to and including 18 months. There are a handful of long-term prisoners in the establishment whom I have met—as a visitor I hasten to add. I spent an afternoon there, although I know that the hon. Member for Ayr would like me to have stayed longer.
It is an important amendment, and even if the Minister cannot see fit to accept it because of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Ayr, I hope that when requests are made for transfers, they are treated sympathetically and expeditiously. That is not always the case now.
Not everyone will visit their Member of Parliament asking for a request to be passed on to the relevant Minister for a daughter or son be placed in an establishment closer to home. Some people will be much too diffident to come to our surgeries with such requests. For a start, they will feel it shameful to have a son or daughter in prison.
I want the Minister to treat the subject with great sympathy, and not merely in relation to transfers within Scotland. Those of us with constituents in prisons south of the border—in my case just a handful—would like sympathetic consideration to be given to bringing those prisoners home. By "home" I mean prisons in Scotland that are not as far away from their homes.
There is much to be done to improve visitor facilities in prisons. The state of affairs at Greenock prison is nothing short of a scandal, but I am not certain that it is much better at Shotts, Edinburgh, Perth or elsewhere. Much needs to be done for the families of prisoners.

Mr. McFall: I have been provoked into speaking by the comments of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), although he does not normally provoke me to do so. If I thought for a minute that the Minister was agreeing with the sentiments originally expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr, I would force a Division. However, I was gratified to read in his letter to me of 14 December 1992 that he took our concerns seriously. I am delighted to note that he has had discussions with the chief executive of the prison service on the matter.
The issue of prisoners and their families is extremely important. If we wish to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and reintroduce them into society, we must


consider their family context. In many cases, women will be left on their own to bring up children, and support and encourage their husbands in prison. If we wish to reduce the prison population it is extremely important that we consider the position of the families. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister has recognised our considerations and stated that the spirit of his letter will be maintained. That being the case, I see no reason for us to press the amendment to a Division.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall reply only briefly as I have already written to hon. Members. We had full discussions on the matter and wanted, if we could, to provide the House with a suitable amendment. We concluded that it would be impractical for several reasons. Cornton Vale is the only women's prison and could not meet the requirement were it to be written into statute. There is a protection unit at Peterhead for prisoners who are liable to be attacked by other prisoners so they could not take advantage of the terms proposed. Similarly, those who are to be held in open conditions can go to Penninghame or Noranside, and we would not want to deprive them of that opportunity.
Prisoners serving more than two years are now entitled to choose from among a range of long-term establishment subject only to the availability of place. The Scottish prison service is working to improve visiting facilities where possible and is also reviewing arrangements for home leave to see whether more prisoners can benefit from home leave without compromising public safety. Those actions are being taken, and will continue to be taken. The proximity of prisoners' families will be taken into account. Where there is overcrowding in prisons, we felt that it would be undesirable to present prisoners with what might have been a right of judicial review, when it would be impractical always to give effect to it. However, as a matter of good practice, the prison service will certainly try to implement the facilities where possible.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for his reassurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

PRINTS, SAMPLES ETC. IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 22, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
'(4A) A police surgeon may, with the authority of an officer of a rank no lower than Inspector, take from the person from an external part of the body by means of swabbing or rubbing a sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue or of other material.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 22, line 21, leave out 'or (4)' and insert
'(4) or (4A)'.
No. 13, in page 22, line 27, at end add—
'(7) In this section "an external part of the body" means any part of the outside skin of the body or any hair growing on it except insofar as these are covered by clothing.'.

Mr. McFall: This group of amendments relates to clause 28, which was debated intensely and in a lively fashion in Committee. The Opposition have tried to be helpful to the Minister by giving a definition of what constitutes an external part of the body. I think that the

Minister defined an external part of the body—to put it succinctly—as one that was not an internal part of the body. There is a searing logic to that definition, which I am sure will make much money for many solicitors and QCs.
Today, I have spoken to the Law Society, to which the Minister sent a helpful letter. The Law Commission's committee has studied the Minister's letter carefully and Michael Clancy told me today that the commission is reassured on many aspects of the matter. I am happy to go along with that: if the Law Society is happy, that is fine.
I know that the Scottish Police Federation and serving police officers are still nervous about the position and have not been reassured by the Minister. That is why I referred just now to the House of Lords judgment of 26 November 1992 in the case of Pepper v. Hart. The Minister will know that that historic judgment stated that, as an aid to construing legislation that was ambiguous or obscure—and which of us knows of legislation that is not unambiguous or obscure—or the literal meaning of which led to absurdity, the courts could refer to reports of debates or proceedings in Parliament.
7.30 pm
With that judgment in mind, I ask the Minister to respond, so that at some stage—perhaps in the next century, in 50 years' time when the Minister and I will not be around—the Minister's name can be invoked regularly in the Scottish courts. It is important that the Minister should make the point here to reassure both the Law Society and serving police officers on that aspect of clause 28.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments raise issues that were debated in some detail in Committee. It may help the House if I explain briefly the main purpose of clause 28.
The provisions in that clause are intended to clarify the powers of the police to take samples and fingerprints of both detained and arrested persons without the need for a warrant. Where a warrant is required or considered necessary, the police will continue as at present to apply through the fiscal to a sheriff for a warrant.
The Bill does not seek to determine the use to which any sample is put, whether it is obtained under warrant or not. If the police or a prosecutor considers that, for the purposes of their investigations, any sample should be subject to the DNA test, then that will be done.
It should be noted, however, that a DNA test will in most cases be of assistance only in determining the suspect's DNA profile in order to compare that profile with any determined from blood, bodily tissue or fluid found on the victim or at the scene of the crime. In such cases, a DNA test will have to be run on a sample clearly taken from an internal part of the body of that suspect—from a hair root plucked from the victim, or from a proper full sample of blood. In both such instances, the sample involved will be invasive. It could not, therefore, be taken by a constable under the provisions of the clause. If the suspect is willing to have such samples taken, it would be possible to proceed without a warrant, but it is normal in such circumstances for a warrant to be obtained in any event.
The types of sample covered by clause 28(4) are all non-invasive. The opinion of the Scottish Law Commission, which I share, is that they are of a kind for which neither a warrant nor the assistance of a doctor


should be required. Some form of authorisation should, however, be involved—hence the reference to an officer of a rank no lower than inspector.
The amendments require a police surgeon, rather than a police officer, to take swabs or rubbings. I fail to see the grounds for such a change. Clearly, there is no medical reason for requiring a police surgeon to take the samples because, as I have stressed, they are non-invasive. There is no evidential reason. The police, unlike doctors, are trained in how to take samples from a variety of locations, and procedures exist to ensure the correct packaging and labelling of such samples to maintain their evidential worth. The services of a police surgeon would not, therefore, add to the evidential value.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy.
Am I right in thinking that a DNA testing unit is to be created in Glasgow? If so, when will it be operational? And was any consideration given to siting it in Greenock—perhaps in the enterprise zone, where it might have created some employment?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is, indeed, to be a DNA unit. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether Greenock was considered as a prime site, but I can tell him that Strathclyde and Tayside forensic science laboratories are the only laboratories providing DNA facilities in Scotland at present. Forces which do not have DNA facilities available submit items for DNA examination to Cellmark Diagnostics. Such facilities exist, and I am sure that Greenock will be borne in mind for the future.
I come now to the definition of "external". In Committe we had an interesting debate on what constituted external or internal. I fear that amendment No. 13 does not take us much further, as essentially it merely seeks to substitute "external" with
the outside skin of the body".
In any event, as I made clear previously, if the police have any doubt about the area from which a sample is to be taken, they can apply for a warrant.
Amendment No. 13 goes on to require that, where any outside skin of the body is covered by clothing, the police cannot exercise their powers unless under the authority of a warrant.
I recognise hon. Members' intentions in tabling the amendment, but I do not consider that the proposed changes would improve the clause. It could result in warrants being required not to take samples but to remove a piece of clothing—for example, a glove—to enable the sample to be taken. Nor do the amendments help to clarify what would happen, for example, if the clothing were torn, or if there were a sample of material at the back of a suspect's neck and he was wearing an open-necked shirt. I believe that the amendment would give considerable scope for confusion.
In the light of my comments, I ask the Opposition not to press the amendment.

Mr. McFall: I am happy to accept the Minister's comments on the matter.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that considerable reservations were expressed by representatives of our police forces about the powers to be given to them under this part of the Bill, and that those reservations have largely been ignored by Ministers?

Mr. McFall: I feel that that is so. In my discussions with them, the police told me that they felt that the power were being foisted on them with no consultation whatever. They had a suspicion—shared, I believe, by Opposition Members—that the clause represented a cost-cutting exercise on the part of the Government and that the police were being asked to do what police surgeons had done previously. As my hon. Friend says, the fears of the police force have certainly not been allayed, and I urge the Government to enter into discussions with the police so that they may be reassured on these matters.
Given that the Law Society is reassured, and that the Pepper v. Hart case will mean that comments made here can be referred to at a later date, as well as the Minister's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 32

EVIDENCE FROM ABROAD THROUGH TELEVISION LINKS IN SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading, I gave the House an undertaking that I would bring forward on Report an amendment that would remove subsection (5) from the new section which is to be inserted by clause 32 into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. I recognise the importance that many hon. Members attach to the matter, and the need to ensure that there is an opportunity for all who wish to do so to take part in the debate. I am glad to be able to discharge that undertaking this evening, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who served on the First Scottish Standing Committee for their self-restraint in allowing the matter to stand over until this stage.
As the House knows, the provisions of clause 32 will enable the evidence of witnesses outside the United Kingdom to be given to a Scottish court by way of a live television link. The new provisions will bring the law of Scotland in that respect into line with the law of England and Wales, where such a facility has been available to both the prosecution and the defence for over two years—that is, since the coming into force of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in November 1990 in respect of certain prescribed crimes.
Were subsection (5) to remain in the Bill, its effect would be to disallow the use of modern technology in respect of one class of serious crime only, and purely on the basis that such crimes would be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act 1991. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate pointed out when this matter was debated in another place, it would be wrong in principle to set up a special and different system for trying persons accused of war crimes. The procedures which this clause will introduce will be available to protect the rights of an


accused person, just as they will enable the prosecution to bring evidence which might not otherwise come before the court.
Concerns were expressed in another place that the television link would be used to enable witnesses to identify accused persons in circumstances that would be unfair to the accused. I stress that the provisions are framed in such a way that the principle of fairness to the accused is paramount. The court must be satisfied, before granting an application by the prosecution to have evidence given by television link, not only that the interests of justice will be served but also that the granting of such an application would not be unfair to the accused.
I have every confidence that the Scottish courts, in applying the principle of fairness to the accused which is so important to our system of criminal justice in Scotland, will ensure that, in every case in which an application for the giving of evidence by television link is granted, the right of the accused to a fair trial will not be imperilled. Given the safeguards built into the provisions, we consider it to be unnecessary and inappropriate that there should be any exclusions.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I believe that I am the only Member present to have voted consistently against the War Crimes Act 1991. I voted against the initial motion, when the temperature of the House was taken, and at every stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, I believe that the amendment, which the Secretary of State introduced so reasonably, ought to be supported. It seems to fly in the face of principle to exclude the use of modern technology for evidential purposes for one crime or set of crimes.
I have taken the opportunity to read the debate in another place which was the progenitor of subsection (5), to which the amendment is directed. I mean no disrespect to their Lordships, but after reading the debate carefully, it is clear to me that in large measure their interest in the matter was influenced by their antagonism to the notion of war crimes legislation—an antagonism that is widespread in the House. That is understandable, but one must accept that the Bill has become law. The Houses of Parliament have passed a measure that I would have preferred not to be passed and to which I am still opposed. However, to seek to exclude the application of modern technology to one part of the criminal system because people feel that it is repugnant for it to be a part of the system cannot be justified on principle.
While I wish that the War Crimes Act had never been passed, I am certain that we should be embarking upon a most dangerous precedent if we were to say that the nature of evidence will depend on the nature of the crime. That seems to open up a range of opportunities. In due course a system would emerge in which principle had disappeared and all crimes would be determined on a virtually ad hoc basis. For that reason, I am more than content that the amendment should be passed. It is right in principle.

Mr. David Winnick: I hope that my colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies will forgive me for intervening briefly in the debate.
The subsection passed in another place is very unfortunate. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) fairly spoke of his opposition to the War Crimes Act and gave his reasons for supporting —as I do—the Government amendment to overturn what

was done in another place. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I supported the War Crimes Act. I gave my reasons at the time and it would be inappropriate, and no doubt out of order, for me to attempt to so again today.
Although I supported the Act, I always did so on the basis that justice must be done. I was not concerned with revenge, as some critics argued. If I had been of the view that so many years have elapsed since the crimes took place during the last war that it would be impossible to get justice, I would not have supported the legislation. I am concerned with justice. Nevertheless, just because they happened half a century ago, it does not mean that the people who are alleged to have been responsible for some of the most monstrous crimes that have ever been committed should not be brought to justice, if that is possible. I believe that people living in the United Kingdom and in Scotland may well have to face justice for such crimes. Should those people be brought to court, under our system the courts will decide whether they are guilty.
Earlier today, I read the debate in another place. As several of their Lordships made clear, when the subsection was debated on 4 June it was almost a replay of the War Crimes Act. Perhaps the word "almost" is not necessary —it was as if their Lordships had decided that, as they had lost the first time round, they would use the Bill to put forward their arguments against the Act. The measure was being used by people who were totally opposed to the Act, which seems unfortunate.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to invite the House to overturn what their Lordships have done, and I am sure that the House will gladly take up the invitation.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the way in which he moved the amendment.
The stand taken by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) deserves comment. He is a credit to the House and to his profession, because at least he is consistent on matters of principle. That is important, especially in legislation and law. As he said, it would be wrong for the use of modern technology to be excluded for one crime.
As everyone knows, war crimes will not be restricted to what happened during the ghastly period between 1939 and 1945. One could argue that many war crimes are being perpetrated at this moment. Who knows whether, at some future date, a resident of Scotland will be charged with a war crime? It is proper and right that the amendment should be supported by the House.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I could not help noticing how different the tone of the debate has been compared with the tone and content of the debate in the other place. Their Lordships were wrong to use the measure to reopen the war crimes issue. By so doing, they have injected anomalies into the relationship between the laws of Scotland and England and between war crimes and other serious crimes.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his comments. I too voted against the original motion. I was persuaded otherwise as


matters proceeded, but I feel the same way as he does about the amendment, for precisely the reasons that he eloquently and effectively put before the House.
I also note and am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I hope that the unanimity of those taking part in this short but important debate will not be lost on their Lordships in another place and that they will recognise the view of this House on an important matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 29, line 41, leave out 'Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to' and insert
'This section and, is so far as relating to paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 of this Act, section 46(1) of?.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 27.

Lord Douglas-Hamilton: It was agreed in Committee that the provisions in paragraph 5 of schedule 5 should come into effect as soon as the Bill was passed. It is necessary for that purpose that the paving provision in clause 46(1), in so far as it relates to paragraph 5 of schedule 5, should come into effect simultaneously.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 32, line 38, at beginning insert
'Except where it is a statement such as is mentioned in paragraph 2A(b) and (c) below,'.

No. 12, in page 33, line 6, leave out
'but', if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied received'
and insert
'unless, in the case of information supplied indirectly, it appears to the court that any person through whom it was so supplied did not both receive and supply'.

No. 30, in page 33, line 29, at end insert—
'2A. A statement in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of the fact that the Statement was made if—

(a) the document satisfies the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) of paragraph 2 above;
(b) the statement is made, whether directly or indirectly, by a person who in those proceedings is an accused; and
(c) the statement, being exculpatory only, exculpates the accused.'.

No. 31, in page 35, line 22, after ?but', insert', except in paragraph 6(1)(a),'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 39, line 48, at end insert—
?() In section 233(1) (note of appeal), the existing words from "within six weeks" to the end shall be

paragraph (a) and after that paragraph there shall be added the word "; or" and the following paragraph—
(b) as the case may be, within four weeks of the passing of the sentence in open court, the Lord Advocate may lodge such a note with the Clerk of Justiciary, who shall send a copy to the said judge and to the convicted person or that person's solicitor.".
() In section 234(1)(presentation of appeal in writing), after the word "appellant" there shall be inserted the words "other than the Lord Advocate".
() In section 236B(2)(extension of certain periods), for the words "233(1)" there shall be substituted the words "233(1)(a)".
() In section 236C (signing of documents), after the words "to appeal" there shall be inserted the words "or (except where the appellant is the Lord Advocate) any".
() In section 238 (admission of appellant to bail), for subsections (1) and (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(1) The High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a convicted person, admit him to bail pending the determination of—

(a) his appeal; or
(b) any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction.

(2) A person who is admitted to bail under subsection (1) above shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal or of any application for leave to appeal; and in the event of his failing to do so the court may—

(a) if he is the appellant—

(i) decline to consider the appeal of application; and
(ii) dismiss it summarily; or

(b) whether or not he is the appellant—

(i) consider and determine the appeal or application; or
(ii) without prejudice to section 3 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (breach of conditions), make such other order as the court thinks fit.".

() In section 239(1)(notice of date of hearing), for—

(a) the words "appellant or applicant", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "convicted person"; and
(b) the word "latter", there shall be substituted the words "appellant or applicant".

() In section 240 (presence of appellant at hearing), for the word "An", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the words "A convicted".
() After section 242 there shall be inserted the following section—

Special provision where appellant is Lord Advocate.

242A. Where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, sections 241 and 242 of this Act shall apply in respect of the convicted person, if in custody, as they apply to an appellant or applicant in custody.".
() In section 243 (provision as to warders attending court), for the words "the last foregoing section" there shall be substituted the words "section 242 of this Act".
() In section 252 (powers of High Court), after the words "228(1)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A
() In section 258 (sentence in absence), after the word "appellant" there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the 'Lord Advocate is the appellant, the convicted person)".
() In section 261 (notice of determination of appeal), after the word "applicant" there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, to the convicted person)".
() In section 264 (disqualification, forfeiture, etc), in each of subsections (1) and (2)—

(a) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "four"; and
(b) after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".

() In section 265 (fines and caution), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—


(4A) A convicted person who has been sentenced to the payment of a fine and has duly paid it shall, if an appeal against sentence by the Lord Advocate results in the sentence being quashed and no fine, or a lesser fine than that paid, being imposed, be entitled, subject to any order of the High Court, to the return of the sum paid or as the case may be to the return of the amount by which that sum exceeds the amount of the lesser fine.".
() In section 268 (reckoning of time spent in custody pending appeal)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "an appellant" there shall be substituted the words "a convicted person";
(ii) after the word "appeal" there shall be inserted the words ?, or as the case may be of any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction,"; and
(iii) for the word "this", where it occurs qualifying the word "sentence", there shall be substituted the word "that";

(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(2) The time (including any period consequent on the recall of bail) during which a convicted person is in custody pending the determination of his appeal, or as the case may be of any appeal by the Lord Advocate against the sentence passed on conviction, shall subject to any direction which the High Court may give to the contrary be reckoned as part of any term of imprisonment under that sentence."; and
(c) in subsection (3), after the word "appellant' there shall be inserted the words "(or, where the appellant is the Lord Advocate, of a convicted person)".
() In section 269 (extract convictions)—

(a) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "four"; and
(b) after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".

() In section 270 (custody of trial documents, etc.)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words from the beginning to "proceedings" there shall be substituted the words "Until any period allowed under or by virtue of this Part of this Act for lodging intimation of intention to appeal (or any longer period allowed by virtue thereof for lodging a note of appeal) has elapsed, all documents and other productions produced at the trial of a convicted person shall be kept";
(ii) after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and
(iii) the words "of two weeks or any extension thereof authorised by the High Court" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and
(ii) for the words "to his" there shall be substituted the words ", as the case may be, to the convicted person's"; and

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A"; and
(ii) for the words "such period of two weeks or extension thereof as aforesaid" there shall be substituted the words "the period mentioned in subsection (2) above".

() In section 273(1)(register of appeals), after the words "228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted the words "or 228A".'.

No. 18, in page 41, line 48, at end insert—
?() In section 277(2)(list of provisions non-compliance with which may be waived), in the first column, under the entry relating to section 242, there shall be inserted the entry "242A".'.

No. 19, in page 42, line 14, at end insert—
?() In section 442(1)(b)(ii) (prosecutor's appeal against sentence on point of law), for the words "in such proceedings" there shall be substituted the words "on such conviction".
() In section 442B (method of appeal against sentence alone)—


(a) after the words "Where a" there shall be inserted the word "convicted";
(b) after the word "Act", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or the prosecutor desires so to appeal by virtue of section 442(1)(c) thereof,"; and
(c) for the proviso there shall be substituted the words "; but nothing in this section shall prejudice any right to proceed by bill of suspension, or as the case may be advocation, against an alleged fundamental irregularity relating to the imposition of the
sentence.".

()In section 452A (disposal of stated case appeal)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "subject" there shall be inserted the words "to subsection (2) below and"; and
(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(2) The High Court shall, in an appeal—

(a) against both conviction and sentence, subject to section 453D(l) of this Act, dispose of the appeal against sentence; or
(b) by the prosecutor, against sentence, dispose of the appeal,

by exercise of the power mentioned in section 453C(1) of this Act.".
In section 453B (appeals against sentence only)—

(a) in each of subsections (1), (7) and (8), after the words "442(1)(a)(ii)" there shall be inserted the words ", or by virtue of section 442(1)(c),";
(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(2) The note of appeal shall, where the appeal is—

(a) under section 442(1)(a)(ii) be lodged, within one week of the passing of the sentence, with the clerk of the court from which the appeal is to be taken; or
(b) by virtue of section 442(1)(c) be so lodged within four weeks of such passing.";
(c) in subsection (6), for the word "(2)" there shall be substituted the words "(2)(a)"; and
(d) in subsection (8), at the end, there shall be added the words "except that, for the purposes of such application to any appeal by virtue of section 442(1)(c), references in subsections (1) to (3) of section 446 to the appellant shall be construed as references to the convicted person and subsection (4) and (5) of section 446 shall be disregarded".

() In section 453C(3) (powers of High Court at time of disposal of appeal)—

(a) after the words "442(1)(a)(ii)" there shall be inserted the words ", or by virtue of section 442(1)(c),"; and
(b) for the word "appellant", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "convicted person".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 44, line 5, at end insert—
?() In section 14(l) (legalised police cells), after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "section 39 of".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During earlier consideration of the Bill, I made it clear that the Government intend a wholesale revision and replacement of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 and of standing orders made under those rules. These amendments may be regarded as evidence that work is in progress to achieve that intention. In the course of that work, it has been noted that some of the provisions in the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 leave one in doubt about the nature and standing of the rules to which they refer.
Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 will make it clear that all rules made under the Act are to be made under section 39 of the Act which will ensure that the new rules that are being prepared will be comprehensive and will be made under a single enabling provision.
Amendment No. 23 will simplify and clarify the terms of section 42 of the Act which, as amended, will require all rules and orders made under the Act to be made by statutory instruments subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House. The other amendments are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 44, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'(3) In section 19 (provisions of 1989 Act applying to remand centres and young offenders institutions)—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words "the rules" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 39 of this Act"; and
(b) in subsection (4), in sub-paragraph (iii) of the proviso—


(i) for the words "paragraphs (i) and (ii)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (i)"; and
(ii) for the words "of the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "under section 39 of this Act".'.

No. 22, in page 44, line 13, at end insert—
?() In section 39(1) (rules for the management of prisons and other institutions)—

(a) the word "and", where it occurs for the third time, shall cease to have effect; and
(b) at the end there shall be added the words "and for any other matter as respects which it is provided in this Act that rules may be made under this section".'.

No. 23, in page 44, line 27, leave out from beginning to ?rules' in line 32 and insert
', for the words from "regulations" to the end there shall be substituted the words "an order made under section 37(1) or".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 47, line 35, at end insert—



'In section 270(2), the words "of two weeks or any extension thereof authorised by the High Court".'.

No. 25, in page 48, line 28, leave out 'Section 39(4)' and insert
'In section 39, in subsection (1) the word "and" where it occurs for the third time; and subsection (4)'.

No. 26, in page 48, line 31, leave out from 'or";? to 'and' in line 37.

No. 27, in page 48, line 42, leave out 'committees' and insert 'committee'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

Mr. McFall: As we said on Second Reading, we should understand the true context of the Bill. First, it emerges from a period of unprecedented upheaval in the Scottish prison service. Secondly, and just as importantly, it

emerges from the fact that we are top of the league in Europe for gaoling people. We therefore need to do something to try to alleviate the situation.
The Bill provided a good opportunity to consider a number of issues. The Opposition can take comfort from the fact that we have highlighted a number of areas for future discussion and, I hope, for future progress, not least the issue of fine defaulters. Fine defaulters comprise 40 per cent. of those entering prison. That is a waste of prison resources about which something should be done and we look forward to the Government taking that on.
We have brought our concerns regarding sections 71 and 72 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to the Minister's attention and he has responded. In England and Wales there has been a review of health services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services. It has reported under the chairmanship of Dr. John Reid. I should like a similar course of action to be taken for individuals in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I thank the Minister for his helpful letters to us during the Committee proceedings right up to today's deliberations.
We were pleased to note that the issue concerning ethnic minorities had been addressed in Barlinnie prison, where prison officers have a formal relationship with Strathclyde community relations council. That is good news, which we welcome. We welcome any progress which can be made on this.
The issue of young people and their rehabilitation is important, and we should like the Minister and others to bear in mind our concern about that. I have received a number of helpful representations from various bodies. One was from a solicitor who has defended criminal cases for more than 20 years. He said:
It is my experience of defending the same people again and again over the years, that the vast majority of my clients give up committing crime not because of any particular sentence which is imposed on them by a Court but rather despite sentences which are imposed on them. Most people give up committing crime because they simply mature or they get a job or they meet a girl who keeps them on the straight and narrow or some other significant life event which causes them to confront the way they have behaved in the past and resolve not to behave that way again".
That illustrates the role that families and other people outside prison play in rehabilitation. That aspect must be emphasised and kept in mind.
I do not want to be too partisan, but I have to point out that there has been no input from the Scottish National party to the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report. That is a gross failure on behalf of the SNP. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others have occupied the airwaves for the past four or five days telling us to boycott this place. The hon. Gentleman receives more than his fair share of attention in this place. As Peterhead prison is in his constituency, it is incumbent on him to represent its interests.
I wish the Opposition to be associated with the good work that is going on in Peterhead prison with regard to the vicious circle of sex offences. Under a project being carried out at Peterhead prison, treatment is given to inmates to try to break the cycle of sex offences. The Glasgow Herald of Saturday 12 December contained a good report by James Freeman, the home affairs


correspondent, of his visit to Peterhead prison. I should like the Government to support the work undertaken in that prison by the governor, Alec Spencer.
I mentioned the SNP and, to be fair, I shall mention the Liberal Democrats. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said on Second Reading that hardly a Christmas goes by without a tabloid newspaper describing the pleasures enjoyed by those who happen to be in prison at that time. He said that in no way would the reporters exchange their life for that of the prisoners. That is extremely important, and with Christmas so close we should bear it in mind. I commend those comments by the hon. and learned Gentleman and congratulate him on his contribution in Committee.
The Opposition welcome the parole recommendations, the work of Kincraig and the Minister's response to the issue of children's evidence. We hope that the Minister will place the Bill in the context that I mentioned at the beginning of his speech. He will have the full support and backing of the Official Opposition for progressive and enlightened measures in the Scottish prison service. We hope that the Bill will be followed by others so that we may have a more sensitive and enlightened criminal justice system in Scotland. We therefore support Third Reading of the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I shall not speak for more than three minutes, because I am starving. Scots Members who are present will not be surprised to hear me say that I intend to confine my speech to clauses 33, 34 and 35. Those who urge us to boycott this place when it is debating such important Scottish legislation exhibit a lack of judgment. As I have said before, those three clauses give added protection to child witnesses who are caught up in the horrendous circumstances of sexual abuse and child abuse and often in cases of the most appalling neglect.
Will the Minister ensure that the equipment and installations to enable child witnesses to take advantage of the Bill's provisions are installed as quickly as possible? As the Minister knows, only two courts in Scotland have closed circuit television links. They are in Edinburgh and in sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow. England and Wales has more than 40 Crown courts with such installations. I hope that at least one sheriff court in each of the sheriffdoms will be given such equipment. That is the least that we can demand on behalf of children who are caught up in such cases. It is wrong to expect child witnesses to travel hundreds of miles to give evidence in a court or a building containing such a television system.
We are debating remarkable measures which will place Scots law in advance of the law elsewhere, because they will give added protection to children while at the same time maintaining the rights of the accused.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said that he would speak for only three minutes because he was starving. I am a bit peckish myself and I look forward to dining with my hon. Friend in about five mintues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to the Scottish National party. I shall not comment for partisan reasons

—[Interruption.] Perhaps in my naive way I am not explaining myself properly and people will think that I am being mischievous.
My constituency covers more than 600 square miles and is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. On television and in the press I see reports about people who share my profession and are paid a good salary to come here and represent those least able to represent themselves. The Bill is the best example for politicians who engage in rhetoric, play gesture politics and tell us that we should not be here. They say that we should sit on our backsides, swan off on rallies or push umbrellas up and down in the pouring rain. That is not my way of representing the 60,000 people who sent me here.
Such an attitude is complete nonsense and those who hold it should speak to George Beattie, an innocent man who has served 13 years in prison and whose only chance of representation is to have his Member of Parliament speak in the House on his behalf. They could also speak to Margaret Smith, who has been in prison for 10 years. It is about time she was out, and she needs someone to speak up for her. Those who want to play silly political games should speak to people who need consideration.
The Bill seeks to improve the running of our prisons and look after the people who are in them. There has been much agreement about the Bill's aims, and for that reason they will probably succeed. We always have our failures and I am sure that we are not smug enough to think that this time we have got it right. However, all hon. Members will agree that we must seek continually to improve the way in which we treat people in our prisons and run our criminal proceedings. I have referred to George Beattie and Margaret Smith. There are also 14-year-old children in Scottish prisons. That is not right, and while it continues we must seek to improve the way in which we operate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall): it is preposterous that Scottish National party Members do not appear for a major debate on important Scottish legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has a significant prison in his constituency. This legislation is extremely important to the officers who work in that prison.
I pay tribute to the Kincraig committee, whose report has largely been implemented through the Bill. I am grateful to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends for their constructive contributions to the debates on the Bill. We have made substantial strides on the issue of children's evidence, in which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has always been especially interested.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission for its work. The Lord Advocate particularly appreciates the immensely detailed hard work carried out by the commission. The Bill will be important both for prison officers and for prisoners. The prison service has made significant improvements in the management of prisons and further positive changes will be made in the next few years.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that the change in the law to allow the right of appeal against


sentences which are too lenient is a substantial reform to the law of Scotland, and one that I believe will be welcomed. I believe that the protection of children in court proceedings will also be regarded as extremely important.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who put the case for disadvantaged groups. Any fears expressed by Helena Kennedy about the blindness of justice have not been borne out in the House on this Bill. We have carefully considered how accused persons, people with disabilities, prisoners on appeal and others will be affected by the matters on which we are legislating. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) for his efforts to enhance the protection of Scotland's rare birds.
I am glad that the House has made its will plain to the other place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear in his speech that this House opposes any exclusion of evidence from proceedings brought under the War Crimes Act 1991. I firmly believe that it is right that proceedings under that Act should be conducted under the same evidential regime as other proceedings in respect of serious crimes. I hope that the other place will now accept the decision of the House of Commons.
It is fair to say that the Bill has attracted a large measure of cross-party support and I strongly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Environmental Information

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
That the draft Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
I shall start with a disclaimer. Having heard the points of order after Scottish questions today to the effect that too many English Members of Parliament had participated, and having sat through a large part of the Scottish debate that has just finished, I thought it right to point out to the uninitiated who, hearing my Scottish accent, might think that this debate is a continuation of Scottish business, that I am introducing Great Britain regulations.
These regulations give the public new legal rights of access to environmental information. As long ago as 1984, we accepted a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that there
should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted access for the public to information which the pollution control authorities obtain or receive by virtue of their statutory powers".
The Government have consistently supported the principle that the public should have rights of access to environmental information, and we have demonstrated our commitment by establishing public registers of environmental information through successive legislative provisions.
In seeking the support and agreement of the House to these regulations, I should like first to say something about the background, then to describe the overall approach and then to deal with some of the issues which have emerged in the course of preparing the regulations and consulting on them.
First, the background to the regulations is that they implement United Kingdom policies, but they take their present form because they also have to apply European Community directive 90/313 on freedom of access to information on the environment. When the text was finalised during the Irish presidency in 1990, we in the United Kingdom were already well advanced in the process of putting in place statutory registers of environmental information. We supported the overall aims of the directive not only because it was consistent with our national policy, but because it placed comprehensive duties to provide access to environmental information on member states elsewhere in the Community.
We published a consultation paper in January this year setting out our proposals for implementation of the directive. We received more than 170 responses from a wide variety of bodies covering industry, local government and the voluntary sector. As one would expect, most people welcomed the principles behind the proposals.
At the end of October this year, we invited comments on draft regulations to implement the directive, together with draft guidance intended to help provide the detail for which many consultees have asked. Again, we received a substantial number of responses to the draft regulations and draft guidance. We have considered the responses carefully and have made a number of changes to the draft regulations and guidance. The draft regulations, taking account of those amendments, are before the House tonight.
During the drafting of the regulations, we had to consider extremely carefully a number of technical drafting issues. I shall come back to those later. That has had an effect on the time available for consultation and the consequent timetable for parliamentary consideration. I am sure that the House will agree, however, that it is imperative that we do everything we can to honour our obligations in EC law. We are especially concerned about the performance of some other member states in that respect. It will not help our arguments in Brussels if we fail to meet Community requirements and then criticise others for the same failing—so we do not intend to fail.
In drafting the regulations, we needed to acknowledge that there was already a substantial body of existing legislation covering public rights of access to environmental information. We wanted to be sure that people continued to enjoy those rights. Therefore, the approach followed in the draft regulations is to apply their requirements to environmental information that is not already available on request under any existing statutory provision. In addition, to ensure compliance with the directive, the arrangements for making available information to the public under statutory provisions must be sufficient to satisfy the requirements set out in the regulations.
Under the regulations, "relevant persons" must make available environmental information on request. I hope that the House will bear with me if I continue to use the term "relevant persons" in the rest of my remarks as shorthand for all the bodies subject to the regulations' requirements. Relevant persons have up to two months to respond to requests for information. Refusals must be in writing and show the reasons. Relevant persons may charge for making information available, provided that the charge does not exceed a reasonable amount. Failure to comply with the regulations will be a breach of duty and an aggrieved person could seek a judicial review or pursue the matter through a private action in the courts.
Relevant persons can protect certain types of confidential information. That could include information relating to international relations, national defence or public security, internal communications or to commercial or industrial confidentiality. Relevant persons will be under a duty to protect other types of confidential information—for example, any of the types of information which may be treated as confidential and are already the subject of restrictions on disclosure. Other types of information that relevant persons will be under a duty to protect include personal and volunteered information, unless the supplier of the information agrees to its disclosure or it is otherwise authorised.
I shall now deal with some of the comments made by consultees on the draft regulations. First, on the scope of the regulations, we have carefully considered whether we should include a list of bodies to which the regulations apply. We are conscious, however, that any list that we include in the regulations will soon become out of date and will need frequent updating. We also have to recognise that production of a list which is not definitive may not be very helpful to anyone and could expose us to challenge in the European Court of Justice for failure to implement the EC directive. It will be for the bodies concerned to take a view on whether they are "relevant persons" under the regulations. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to rule on those questions.
The question of the extent to which charges should be made for supplying information has attracted much comment. There is the very reasonable concern that charges will be too high and will discourage the public from requesting information. However, there is the equally reasonable concern that new obligations to supply information will bring extra costs. We have tried to strike a balance between those concerns. There is therefore a discretionary power to make a charge in respect of the costs reasonably attributable to the supply of information. The payment of such a charge can be made a condition of supplying information. Holders of information can make a charge to cover their costs, and those requesting information may be charged only a reasonable amount. Inspection of statutory public registers will remain free of charge.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not wish to anticipate what others may say, but one of the questions which always crops up when one talks of "a reasonable charge" is whether it is the real, additional cost to the provider of the information, or levied according to a more subjective test. Is it the Government's view that the cost should be only the additional cost to the provider of providing that information to the person who has requested it?

Mr. Maclean: I do not intend to pontificate on what may be the reasonable cost. I shall not be the judge and jury on that matter. I have introduced the regulations and made a requirement that the cost shall be reasonable. The company must ensure that the cost is reasonable. If the person who requested the information feels aggrieved and feels that the cost is not reasonable, he or she has rights of redress.
I stress the fact that inspection of statutory public registers will continue to remain free of charge. The House should take that fact on board. We have also considered, but rejected, suggestions that we should prescribe a standard charging regime applicable in all cases. A standard charging regime would place a straitjacket on all the many and different bodies responsible for providing information, and would inevitably fail to take account of all their different circumstances and how they operate. The regulations therefore leave it to the discretion of the relevant person concerned whether to charge for information and, if so, how much.
On the key issues arising from comments on the exceptions to the right to information dealt with in the regulations, there has been concern that information of commercial value provided to environmental regulators and other relevant bodies could become available to competitors through the arrangements set out in the regulations. Those fears are unfounded. Where there are statutory restrictions on the release of commercially confidential information or trade secrets, they must continue to apply under the regulations. Where other information has been provided in response to statutory requirements, the relevant person has discretion not to provide the information to others if it is commercially confidential. Where information has been provided on a voluntary basis, the relevant person is under a duty not to provide the information to others without the agreement of the supplier. The regulations are not a charter for one company to poach commercially sensitive information from another.
I shall now deal with concerns that the provisions allowing relevant persons to refuse to supply information if it is contained in internal communications or incomplete documents provides a ready formula for refusing all requests for information. The provisions are aimed at enabling organisations to conduct their internal administrative work in private. I hesitate to generalise on those issues because every case would need to be dealt with on the facts available, but that is precisely the point: it will be a matter of fact whether a document really is incomplete or whether it really is an internal communication. In addition, relevant persons will be under a duty to separate out environmental information and make it available, unless it is incapable of being separated. Ultimately, a court could be asked to take a view on those matters and be the final judge.
As for volunteered information, I know from my experience in the Ministry that regulatory authorities and industry find it very helpful to discuss information volunteered by industry when considering applications for authorisations or consents. This is information which a company will not be required by statute to disclose, but none the less it is of immense assistance in helping the regulatory authority to understand the operating practices and background of the company concerned.
Although much of that information will be "environmental information"—under the terms of these regulations, it is quite likely—indeed, I am fairly certain —that it would not have been volunteered in the first place if the supplier believed that it would be passed on to somebody else, particularly competitors. We recognise those concerns, and the regulations therefore provide relevant persons with no discretion at all to disclose volunteered information to others without the prior consent of the volunteer supplier. We think that that is essential to ensure the continued supply of important volunteered environmental information.
I must now refer to rights of redress for a person who is refused information. Under the regulations, everyone refused information has a right to that refusal being in writing and the reasons for the refusal being specified. That should establish clearly why the information has been refused, but it will also provide an opportunity to resolve any misunderstandings which may have arisen.
If a person requesting information believes that he or she has been wrongfully refused, additional rights are available under the regulations. He or she may seek judicial review of the decision concerned or pursue the matter through a private action in the courts. It should be of some reassurance to suppliers of information who feel that they have been financially damaged by its disclosure that they could, if they wished, pursue a claim for damages by a private action. But court actions are not welcomed by anyone. We saw in the last debate how only lawyers become rich as a result of such actions. It will be the responsibility of every relevant person to be open and fair in how requests for information are dealt with and they must do everything possible to explain why, if it really is necessary, information cannot be supplied.
There is clearly much support for the general principle of providing the public with access to environmental information. I have many more pages of compelling arguments which could support the regulations, but that

information is entirely confidential and I cannot reveal it to the House, so I merely commend the regualtions to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am tempted to begin by observing how far we have come in the past five years. Five years ago, I introduced into a House a private Member's Bill, which is now the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988. Surreptitious attempts were made by the Government, emanating especially from the Whips, to stifle the Bill at birth. Eventually, however, a combination of public opinion, governmental embarrassment and Bernard Levin managed to ensure that we got the Act on the the statute book. I pay particular tribute to my late and noble colleague the Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who helped to pilot that measure through the House of Lords subsequent to its passage through the Commons.
Matters have moved on since then and I welcome the Government's introduction of regulations to improve access to environmental information. It is crucial that the general public has as much access to information about what is happening to the environment as possible. After all, environmental degraduation affects us all. Even the Prime Minister appears to have woken up to this fact. About 16 months ago, he made a speech at a conference organised by The Sunday Times, in which he said:
We have opened the door to environmental information.
He was a little ahead of himself in that claim, because it is only now that the door is really open. He continued:
Every individual, every group, will in future have access to the information they need in order to act as an environmental watchdog. That information is the citizen's right, and the Active Citizen will use that right constructively.
The Prime Minister was correct. The rhetoric was fine, the objective is excellent, but I am afraid that the regulations do not measure up to the ideals. The Government are submitting them late—this is the last possible moment at which they could do so. They are seriously inadequate in a number of key respects. Not only do they fall far short of embracing the spirit of European Community directive 90/313, but I have some major questions about whether they fulfil the letter of the directive.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has unearthed a couple of explanatory documents from the Department of the Environment that are helpful in so far as they go, but they do not address some of the concerns raised outside the House by Friends of the Earth and other organisations. I have a list of some of those concerns. First, what actually counts as environmental information? Paragraph (2)(b) of regulation 2 speaks of
any activities or measures … which adversely affect anything mentioned in sub-paragraph (a)".
That is water, air, soil, fauna, flora and so on. How will this work in practice? How will we know whether a particular piece of information is regarded as adversely affecting some of the essential components of our environment?

Mr. Roger Evans: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not understand—perhaps he would kindly explain—how the drafting in the regulations differs materially from article 2(a) of the European directive on the point that he has just described.

Mr. Smith: I am not criticising the regulations for differing from the directive in that regard. I shall come on to a number of other points of that nature, but that does not invalidate the point, which is that if we are to have regulations, we need to be certain how the basic definitions in them will be interpreted.
Let us take two examples of what counts as environmental information. One has recently come to public notice. The Secretary of State overturned a recommendation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that information about the inputs to power stations run by National Power should be made accessible to the public. National Power contended that this information was not relevant to the environmental impact of running power stations. HMIP demurred. The Secretary of State clearly sided with National Power. Inputs to a power station may not directly impact on the environment, but will have an inevitable consequence eventually on the environment once they have been used through the power station. In such cases, does that count, under the regulations, as environmental information? That is a valid question to which the answer is unclear.
Let us take another example, that of the contracts that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. had for the reprocessing of nuclear wastes in the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The nature and content of those contracts have never been made public, yet, they have a considerable impact on the future running of the plant and are crucial to an assessment of the case as to whether that plant will have an environmental impact. In that instance, it is unclear whether that counts as environmental information. We need to have the broadest possible definition, but will that be what the regulations mean in practice? There is a serious question mark about that, and it ought to be addressed.
Secondly, the definition of "response" in relation to the two-month deadline is unclear. There is a world of potential difference between a mere acknowledgement of a request and the provision of a full answer, both of which could qualify as a response. Surely this ought to be more clearly spelt out. If a response is to be required within two months, we ought to know precisely what sort of response is required. Will it have to be more than an acknowledgement? The regulations are ambiguous about that.
Thirdly, it is worrying that a charge can be made for the provision of information. That has already been the subject of an exchange across the Floor of the House. Notwithstanding the qualification of reasonableness, there is always a danger that the ability to charge will be used as an effective barrier to the seeking of information. Rather than removing my concern about that fact, what the Minister said in response to questions across the Floor of the House intensified it.
Challenging a judgment of reasonableness in the courts would be a prohibitively expensive course for the applicant to embark upon. While charging of the public for access might be reasonable if strict rules about the actual costs incurred by the body providing the information were to be inserted, where no such rules apply—there are none in the regulations it is possible that the ability to charge will be used to prevent access.
Fourthly, the exclusion from access to information relating to matters affecting international relations is a broad definition, putting anything with a third-hand connection with international relations outside the scope

of the regulations. What will this involve—action taken in accordance with the biodiversity treaty, international discussions at Copenhagen on ozone depletion or in Paris about dumping at sea, safeguarding the shipment of plutonium at sea? All those could conceivably fall under the definition of the exclusion. None of them should.
Let us take another specific example—matters relating to the import of toxic wastes. The Basle convention and the recent Luxembourg agreement are matters subject to international discussion and agreement and conceivably related to international relations. In this respect, I fear that the Minister has not been particularly forthcoming. During oral questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 9 December the Minister of State touched on the Basle convention and the import of toxic waste, following the Luxembourg agreement. He answered my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) as follows:
We have just negotiated a regulation in the EC which will, for the first time, give this country the power to turn off the tap of waste coming from developed countries for disposal here.
Later he answered a subsequent question as follows:
Waste for final disposal should be dealt with in developed countries. That is what we have negotiated and we are implementing national plans to ensure that it is put into place when the directive is ratified."—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 836.]
That is all well and good. The impression given was that, following the agreement at Luxembourg, the Government would get stuck into the process of drawing up measures to ensure that waste coming into Britain from developed countries would be stopped.
Only six days beforehand, however, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the Minister had said of the regulations that would be considered following the Luxembourg agreement:
We expect no change as a result of the regulation to existing practice within the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 289.]
It appears, then, that the Government speak with two voices. On 9 December they give the House the clear impression that there will be change, new regulations, action. When they answer my hon. Friend on 3 December, they say that there will be no change.
Why? Having sight of the relevant documents would help, but I suspect that they will fall under the exclusion of matters "related to international affairs". That is a broad-brush exclusion.
Fifthly, the regulations lack any realistic appeals procedure for occasions when access is denied. Article 4 of the directive speaks of the need for some such system:
A person who considers that his request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system.
So the Government are complying with the terms of the directive by saying that judicial review is possible when an access request has been refused.
There are, however, a number of problems. Judicial review can be a costly and cumbersome procedure. With the latest Government cuts in legal aid there is no guarantee that those in need of financial assistance to mount such a review would be able to do so. The only matter that can be considered by such a review is a matter of procedural fairness, not a matter of the real substance of a refusal. That too is a limiting factor.
In most cases judicial reviews do not permit of the cross-examination of witnesses or the discovery of documents, so it would be difficult realistically to contest a claim of refusal of access on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It would be much better if the Government adopted the proposal that we submitted many months ago in our freedom of information Bill at the start of this year —a proposal for a proper system of appeal to a commissioner who would act on behalf of the citizen, with the back-up of an appeal to a tribunal for the citizen, the relevant authority or a third party, if the commissioner's action did not resolve the issue. The Government have not got the need for a genuine appeals mechanism right.
Sixthly, there is also an exclusion from access for matters subject to a local or public inquiry or hearing. It baffles me why the Government included this provision. The directive states that member states may—not shall —provide for refusal of access for a number of reasons. It may be refused where it affects
matters which are, or have been sub judice, or under enquiry (including disciplinary inquiries), or which are the subject of preliminary investigation proceedings".
There is no requirement that the regulations should exclude public inquiries, and it seems that the Government are going rather further than the directive suggests they should by cluding local and public inquiries.
The regulations also fly in the face of existing practice at such inquiries, where the earliest disclosure of each side's case has consistently been argued for by the Department of the Environment. A vital feature of our public inquiry system is that full information is available to the public throughout the proceedings. These regulations would permit that principle to be overturned. Is this a case of backtracking by the Government, and if so why? I do not understand why the Government would want to diminish the public's access to information that they have at the moment. Why not omit public and local inquiries from the list of exceptions?

Mr. Roger Evans: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I have not examined the French text of the directive, but it looks as though the directive is directed towards a dossier in the process of compilation by, for instance, a French examining magistrate, which is not made public until the conclusion of that process. that would be logical and understandable. Meanwhile, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I cannot see how that can possibly be relevant to the wording of regulation 4(2)(b). The other point to which he has drawn attention, regulation 4(5), seems a classic case of mistranslation.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is quite likely to be right about the origin of this feature of the regulations. It seems on this point that the directive permits a Government to decide to be more open when drafting their own national regulations, and the Government should have followed that principle when drawing them up.
Seventhly, one of the other exclusions from access mentions commercial confidentiality. Regulation 4(2)(e) tells us that information can be treated as confidential if it is
information relating to matters to which any commercial or industrial confidentiality attaches".
Note the words "relating to". They allow a fairly broad scope.
Compare and contrast this with the wording of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 22(11) talks about information being commercially confidential
if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.
The Government have therefore taken two different approaches. In the 1990 Act they specifically said that commercial confidentiality should be allowed only on tough grounds where it was judged that disclosure would
prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.
The definition of exclusion on the grounds of commercial confidentiality is remarkably broad in the regulations:
information relating to matters to which any commercial or industrial confidentiality attaches".
The Government have adopted the easiest possible approach to drawing up the regulations. They have been minimalist in the way in which they have interpreted the requirements of the directive. Where it has been possible to exclude information from access, they have taken the opportunity to do so.
They should not have approached the exercise in that way. They have acted late and grudgingly. They have done the bare minimum that they needed to do, and even that is questionable in some respects.
The regulations raise serious questions about definition, interpretation and exclusion. They could have represented a real provision for full access to environmental information and a real strengthening of citizens' power. Instead, we have a flawed set of proposals. I sincerely hope that the Government will think more carefully about this and come forward in the near future with revisions that meet some of the objections of which they need to take account. As they stand, I fear that the regulations, although a small step forward, are a sadly missed opportunity.

Mr. Roger Evans: I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has been a little curmudgeonly in his response to the regulations, which are a classic piece of Euro legislation in the very best sense.
Enormous benefits will flow from the amount of environmental information that will become available as a result of the regulations. There is no virtue in deceiving people through ignorance. The opposition that has been mounted in certain parts of the press to the publication of the history of landfill sites, lest that adversely affects the development of houses thereon at a later time, is wholly unfair and unrealistic. People have a right to know.
It is interesting that seven substantive criticisms have been made of the way in which the regulations have been drafted. However, it appears that the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen—with one exception, to which I have already referred—should be heartily congratulated and have followed the drafting of the directive.
The first criticism made against the regulations was the test of "adversely affect." It may well be that that raises an issue of fact, but the actual wording is
adversely affect … or likely adversely to affect.
That is wide language, and, provided that there is something conceivable and practical in the way of a factual nexus between the information and the adverse reaction to it, a court will order disclosure. This is how, for example, the treaty of Rome is creating actionable rights for


individual subjects for the first time in areas of public law that we have never known in this country. That is why it should be welcomed. That change represents, no doubt, in the language of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the spread of civil liberties in a practical, direct and important manner. I have no doubt that if there was a refusal to disclose information on the inputs to power stations, and provided that there is some scientific basis, as we strongly suspect that there must be, between what goes in and what might come out, that could be challenged in the courts for the first time.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore give that message to the Secretary of State, who has said that precisely such information shall be kept confidential?

Mr. Evans: We are debating the regulations because we are going to change the law; the Government have accepted that. Under the regulations that we are about, I hope, to pass, there will be power for the first time to challenge such a decision to refuse to disclose any information.
Let us re-examine Sellafield. I have no doubt that the undesirable and highly secretive practices of the nuclear industry will be exposed to the ray of truth and light to an extent that we have never seen before. Such disclosure will not be limited just to ourselves. Those of us who have always been suspicious of the French habit of putting nuclear power stations near Cherbourg and along the coast of Brittany, opposite the Channel islands, will now have an opportunity, for the first time, to press the French nuclear industry to reveal a whole host of information that might be of great interest.
The whole point about Community action rather than national action is that pollution knows no national frontiers, and the regulations are an excellent example of the Community at work doing a great deal of good.
Complaint has been made about charging and overcharging for the supply of information. Surely some reasonable payment must be made for the burden on various organisations that must supply information. Otherwise, every otiose and unreasonable request would simply be imposed as an additional burden upon the taxpayer, ratepayer or a commercial concern, which would pass that on through its prices to the consumer. We have already accepted under the Data Protection Act 1984 a system of charging. If one has a right to know, it is reasonable that one should pay a reasonable charge.
I do not understand why a complaint about disclosure
capable of affecting international relations
should be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend. That is the precise language in paragraph 4(2) and, in any event, such a restriction, even if it were taken up, would not apply to inter-Community relations. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for guidance on that when he winds up.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has also complained that there is no proper appeal procedure, but I would suggest to him that judicial review is a cheap, economical, speedy and effective process for challenging Ministers. Even on legal aid we have seen the radical growth of the ambit and scope of that remedy in recent years. Individual legally aided plaintiffs have challenged Ministers with increasing enthusiasm, backed up by the legal profession. law centres and so on.
There is a right under order 53 of the rules of the Supreme Court to obtain discovery of documents and a

power to order interrogatories. Cross-examination is not impossible and it may be ordered at the discretion of the judge. Real remedies of substance are offered, by way of the process of judicial review, which is well established and is effective.
As to confidentiality in respect of commercial transactions and the phrase "relating to", that phrase is customary and well known and it is used in the case of discovery of documents "relating to" the issues in an action. What is proposed in the regulations is perfectly conventional and has wide-reaching implications.
However, I share the amazement and puzzlement of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about local inquiries. For years there has, quite properly, been an increasing degree of the prior disclosure of information. I do not understand how the exception of local inquiries has crept into the regulations, unless because of a mistranslation.
I am also puzzled about another, connected matter. Regulation 4(2)(b) refers to
information relating to, or to anything which is or has ben the subject-matter of, any legal … proceedings".
I would understand the enthusiasm of the French Government to preserve secrecy if a secret dossier were being compiled, given the inquisitorial system that operates in that country. Under the British system, however, all documents in the court process—whether they are pleadings or affidavits—are normally deemed to be public documents which are matters of public record.
The provision is peculiar; I do not know why it was included in the first place. It also leads to a serious anomaly. Let us suppose that a plaintiff sues a polluter for defamation, or a polluter sues someone else on the same grounds, and those proceedings compromise in the traditional way of the record being withdrawn. The information will then become secret, and the regulation encourages it to remain secret. I do not see why matters that are the subject of litigation should not be in the public domain when our court system is public.
My constituents are very anxious about the effect of proposals that are now the subject of a public inquiry: we are awaiting the results, which will eventually reach the Secretary of State for Wales. They are concerned about the health consequences, and the effect on the environment, of opencast coal mining on the Blorenge at a site called Pwll Du. There has been a good deal of community action of the classic variety, which advances human knowledge, understanding and public awareness. I am thinking particularly of the work of Doctors Taylor and Temple, who have exposed real public concerns about the environmental effects of opencast mining.
Such arguments should not take place in secret. The cards should be placed face upwards, and the promoters of opencast coal mining—or any other activity that may have adverse effects on health—should be forced to publish all the relevant information so that the public may form their own judgment and independent experts may do the same. That is precisely what the statutory instrument proposes, and I commend the European Community for its imagination. Here is a classic example of something that can be done better at Community level.

9 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: In February this year, on behalf of my party, I launched a document entitled "Good Government for a Greener


Britain"—which no doubt was read assiduously by all hon. Members. I would like to remind the House of what I said then and I think that this is the first time in nearly 10 years that I have quoted my own words in this place, as I crave the House's indulgence.
I said:
Secrecy is the number one killer of the environment in Britain today, and a Freedom of Information Act is the best possible deterrent to this type of crime. Our eco-system is being let down by our political system.
The Government often uses the excuse of commercial confidentiality to keep facts from its citizens. Yet it is the countries which trust their citizens with information which are not only freer than us but more prosperous. Our unaided senses may tell us that something is wrong with the area we live in or the food we eat, but only hard information will point the way to remedy it.
The citizen must be properly informed. Green knowledge is green power.
Like the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), I am enthusiastic about what the treaty of Rome and subsequent legislation have done for freedom of information and for the environment. I have always been enthusiastic about the European Community, partly because it has pushed us further and faster towards good environmental practice. I therefore welcomed the directive requiring member states to introduce legislation to enact those proposals.
As the hon. Member for Monmouth rightly said, one of the great advances in our legal system in recent years is the interest in public law on rights to environmental information. The fact that many associations and individuals now practise environmental law is not unrelated. There is now an Environmental Law Federation, and some practitioners deal with almost nothing else. That is because the public want or require information, and often have to take legal action to avail themselves of their rights.
In recent years, Government legislation has done something to improve those rights. As he rightly reminded us, the initiative of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—supported by freedom of information campaigns—also put a Private Member's Bill on the statute book; but we needed more, and the statutory instrument gives us the opportunity to secure more.
Like other hon. Members, I shall not vote against the regulations because to do so might prevent us from complying with our European Community obligations—and far be it from me to wish that on the House. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, we are cutting it pretty fine. This is the last environmental debate of 1992 and of the British presidency, comment about which is often made elsewhere, and we are just in time in squeezing in these regulations, which we have an obligation to enact by the end of the year—so we had better be good and allow them to go through, even if we have some criticisms about their inadequacy.
The regulations are welcome but, as the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Monmouth have said, we could and should have done better. I, too, shall suggest where we must do better and hope that the Minister, it being the week before Christmas, will be in a responsive mood and will say, "Yes, I accept that this is not a perfect document and we shall see whether we can improve it in due course." I hope that there will be an

opportunity to review the use of the regulations before too long. One of the problems with the House is that it passes much legislation that is not consolidated, which would help the public. Often we do not review legislation or regulations until we have discovered, far too late, that they are not working too well.

Mr. Roger Evans: Article 8 of the directive places an obligation on the Government to report to the Commission within four years.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed.
Given the importance of environmental information and legislation, I hope that we shall hold an annual debate on the state of the environment, in which Ministers and other hon. Members could comment on the progress being made. Additionally, as with most Community legislation, there is a duty on the Government to report back for a Communitywide review. One of the benefits of this legislation will be that we will have access to information about what is going on not only in Britain but in other European Community countries—for instance, about nuclear power in France, pollution of rivers and seas by coastal countries, and so on.
The Minister explained in his introduction that the regulations do not extend to Northern Ireland, and nearly told us why. We know why: the normal reason is that legislation for Northern Ireland is dealt with separately; none the less, we have a duty under the treaty to ensure that Northern Ireland is covered. I should like to know when the people of Northern Ireland will be given the same rights as the rest of us. Unless I have missed something, there is barely any time left to comply, and I should be disappointed if on 1 January the people of Northern Ireland found themselves unable to avail themselves of the same rights as the rest of us.
I shall not elaborate on the criticisms that have been made but rather shall concentrate on those which seem the most germane. Lest I be accused of traditional Opposition churlishness, I should say that the regulations have been criticised by environmentalists as well. I ask the Government to take that criticism seriously.
There is a problem with the term "relates to the environment", which is the definition given in regulation 2(1)(a) and expanded in 2(2)(a), as the Labour spokesman said. However, regulation 2(2)(a) is a limited expansion and the definition is also very limited. If we went out into the streets of London on this damp and dismal evening and asked people what they understood by the term "relates to the environment" the reply would be not so limited as the list in regulation 2(2)(a).
Regulation 3 is entitled, "Obligation to make environmental information available", and covers the arrangements for replying to any response. There is also a problem with the test which is set out because it is deemed a failure only if there is no response after two months. As we know from parliamentary answers, a response can be anything and nothing—it can be helpful or unhelpful, minimalist or maximalist. It is inadequate to define a failure only as not having a request responded to at all after more than two months. I am sure that this will prove a loophole. People will be able to say that they have responded, but the response may often be nothing worth.
Regulation 3(3) provides another let-out. When I worked in the secretariat for human rights at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, we had to apply tests which


debarred applicants from getting their case before the Commission, let alone the court. One of the tests was whether the issue was too general and not specific enough. We are creating a problem here by building in a threshold which states that a request for information can be refused when the request
is manifestly unreasonable or is formulated in too general a manner.
We, the public, may not know exactly what information is held. That is half the battle, because the information is held by the person whom we seek to challenge. Therefore, it is no good to be told, "Sorry, you are being too general—what exactly do you want?" when one does not know what information is held.
There is also a problem with charges, which are covered in the following paragraph. There is a qualification of the test for the charges, nevertheless the charges should be no greater than the cost to the provider of providing information to the person who asks. It is unreasonable to levy charges other than the cost of reproducing a copy and the cost of personnel time for information that is held. That is a weakness, because the regulation goes no further.
The hon. Members for Monmouth and for Islington, South and Finsbury and I would probably put at the top of our list of concerns the exceptions in regulation 4. The most general criticism is that regulation 4 has been chosen by the Government as a mechanism for including more and wider exceptions than were required by the directive or by good environmental practice.
I expect that colleagues will have seen the report published in November this year in the journal of Environmental Data Services Ltd., but it is worth bringing it to the House's attention. Page 35 states:
Obstructing in Whitehall seems set to restrict the impact of the 1990 EC directive on public access to environmental information, which is due to be brought into force at the end of the year. An official from the Department of the Environment … has revealed that other Departments are likely to block requests for not only their own information but for industrial data claimed to be commercially confidential.
I have not made inquiries to see whether that official is in the Box tonight and I do not mean to embarrass him if he is. He is nonetheless quoted in the article, so I shall quote him now.
The article continues:
a DoE official, Dick Baxter, at a conference on international chemicals control in November
said that whereas his Department was quite positive, other Departments were certainly less so. He noted that the exemptions were quite wide and that other Departments had told his Department that they would probably be able to find some means of not disclosing. Mr. Baxter said:
If their culture is agin, I believe they can find a hook to hang it on.
That is not very encouraging. Even if the Department of the Environment is being good, all the other Departments may not be good.
The article continues:
Mr. Baxter revealed that several Departments are insisting that if industry insists that information is commercially confidential, that would be sufficient reason not to disclose it. It will be open to Departments to ask companies to reconsider, he said, 'but some might not wish to challenge it, others may.?
In summing up the situation in which people would be left, Mr. Baxter concluded:
The directive's success … is … likely to depend on people being willing to go to court. Groups such as Friends of

the Earth and the Freedom of Information Campaign have the resources to do so, and 'if I were in their shoes, I would go straight to the European Court of Justice.?
In the past few years, I have occasionally been to conferences where I have heard officials say interesting things—not only officials from the Department of the Environment. I remember a Department of Energy official saying that it was quite possible for Britain to do without the nuclear component for energy supply if we wanted to, provided that we had energy efficiency and energy conservation measures that worked.
If Mr. Baxter is right—he seems to know what he is talking about—we have substantial cause for concern. Departments can be obstructive and companies in the private sector can be obstructive. The regulations will rely on people going to court, which should not be the case. We should not make people go round a great obstacle course —we should be opening the doors wide so that people can go straight through.
The exception clause is therefore a great problem. Although we could argue that it is the normal legal text, the phrase in regulation 4(1)(a)—
Nothing in these Regulations shall … require the disclosure of any information which is capable of being treated as confidential
is far too wide. The other half of the regulation says:
or authorise or require the disclosure of any information which must be so treated.
The specific and obvious example of where the regulations are drawn in a way that is far too wide—I do not intend to elaborate on the well-made points about international negotiations which relate to regulaton 4(2)(a)—regulation is 4(2)(b). The regulation says:
For the purpose of these Regulations information is to be capable of being treated as confidential if, and only if, it is … information relating to, or to anything which is or has been the subject-matter of, any legal or other proceedings (whether actual or prospective)".
It is a ridiculous proposition that one will allow an exemption—the hon. Member for Monmouth went down this road too—for anything that has ever been the subject of any sort of legal proceedings, no matter how widely defined. Once the case is over, whether traditional legal battle, public inquiry or any of the other proceedings set out in 4(5), under the British system, information should be open and available. There is no excuse at all for such documents to be exempt and it is completely unjustified.
Many issues are the subject of public inquiries. Examples are whether Sizewell B should be built, whether THORP—the thermal oxide reproducing plant—should be brought into operation, whether the M3 bypass should go across Twyford down and whether there should be an east London river crossing at Oxleas wood. All those are the subject of public debate, possible legal cases or applications for judicial review. All that should be in the open. It is disgraceful that we are seeking to grant that exemption, particularly as the directive, as I understand it, does not require it. It provides an opportunity, but not a requirement. The Government are being traditionally defensive on the subject. I do not know whether it is the Department of the Environment or other Departments which have urged the Government to be so.
The list of confidential information on the following page also allows room for ambiguity and prevarication. It states:
information relating to the confidential deliberations"—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: At the end of regulation 4(2)(b) there is reference to


any legal or other proceedings (whether actual or prospective)".
The word "prospective" makes the condition so expansive that anyone seeking to restrict any information, according to the regulations, need only say that they intend to consider taking legal proceedings and they will not have to reveal the information.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. I was so carried away with my earlier point that I forgot to deal with that. It would be as if we, in this place, were told that matters could not be raised because they were sub judice simply because they might be the subject of legal action at some future date. That would allow anything to be exempted. If there were controversial proposals for orimulsion and it was reported in a newspaper that a campaign group would take legal action if BP went ahead, the regulations would threaten us if we revealed the information.
The regulations also refer to
information relating to the confidential deliberations of any relevant person".
That contains a hidden question relating to the relevant person—who could be a local councillor, or a member of a Government Department or a quango—and whether specific parts of their deliberations should be confidential.
Regulation 4(2)(d) could allow for real skulduggery. It refers to
information contained in a document or other record which is still in the course of completion".
We all know how hon. Members occasionally chance upon documents. If we wave our spoils about and say that we have found a secret document belonging to another party, the defence used is normally that what we have is not the final document, but only a draft. It is very difficult to know when a document has been completed, and it is always a defence to say that it has not. The regulations we are debating tonight are not complete—they are only draft regulations. We do not know whether it is a completed document or not. Would it be completed if it had been shown to one person in the Department, or to one person and an expert outside the Department, or to 25 people? The regulation provides a minefield of excuses.
Regulation 4(2)(e) refers to
information relating to matters to which any commercial industrial confidentiality attaches or affecting any intellectual property".
Public interest should override commercial confidentiality. It is not good enough for a private sector company or a nationalised company, or a company such as PowerGen, which is an in-between company, to say that the matter is commercially confidential. That assertion must be tested. We know that, if the matter is taken to court, a plea can be entered stating that the information is commercially confidential and the matter will not be aired.
There should be a public interest test. Environmental information is no good if it is available only from the public sector. People living in Pontypool need to know what ReChem is doing, and people living just outside Presteigne or Kington near the borders of Powys need to know what the local garage is doing burning tyres—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or Coalite.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman refers to Coalite. There are loads of issues, and they include opencast

mining, the Bolsover farmers and the allegations about the pollution of milk. It is no good allowing the private sector merely to say, "This is a confidential matter."
The next part of the regulations elaborates on what "confidential" means. It really is not good enough to define "confidential" in such a way as effectively to allow pleas of confidentiality always to win the day. That is the danger of the regulations: although they open a door, someone the other side of that door who wants to close it can do so by saying that commercial confidentiality is at stake.
The problem is that the directive allows Governments to be far too restrictive. It would have been better had there been a standard way of providing information, but that opportunity has gone. It would also have been better if the Government had not availed themselves of the right to exempt unfinished documents or data. That blanket restriction is not necessary and should not have been included.
Finally, as the official from the Department of the Environment said, we should not have regulations which need constantly to be tested in court. Like many other hon. Members, I trained as a lawyer, but I believe that the test of good legislation, particularly freedom of information legislation, is not the amount of work that it gives to lawyers but the extent to which it allows the public access to information without having to have recourse to lawyers —in other words, how easy it is for the public to get the information that they require.
I hope that we shall review the workings of the legislation in the light of experience, before the end of next year, and yearly thereafter. As far as they go, the regulations are welcome, but they do not prove that the Government are yet converted either to the cause of environmental openness or to real freedom of information. To some of us, that comes as no surprise; even so, we had hoped that, after all this time, this very necessary open door might have been opened slightly wider tonight.

Mr. John Denham: Let me take the opportunity to make some comments about the relationship that surely exists between the availability of environmental information and public confidence in the way in which the Government and other bodies handle environmental issues. It seems to me self-evident that, even if the Government took all the correct action, full public confidence in their actions would be unlikely to be forthcoming unless sufficient environmental information was available to members of the public.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me whether the regulations would assist the public on two specific issues. If the answer is no, the regulations are deficient. If the answer is yes, they may be helpful. The first issue concerns the import of toxic waste into the United Kingdom from developed countries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has already referred.
For several months, hon. Members, including me, have been engaged in a fruitless correspondence with Ministers and in exchanges at oral questions on this issue. We have regularly been told that the Government have negotiated the power to limit the import of toxic waste. We have not yet extracted a simple pledge that the import of toxic waste from developed countries will be stopped. That is a matter


of considerable local concern in Southampton, both because thousands of tonnes of toxic waste from developed countries are imported through the docks and travel our roads and railways and because there is a ReChem incinerator plant on the waterside.
The fact that ReChem was recently successfully prosecuted for exceeding discharge limits has done nothing to reassure local people about the operation of the plant. Having listened to the debate, and given ReChem's tendency to find itself in court over these matters, I wonder to what extent the regulations will help local people to obtain the information that they need about the ReChem plant's operations. Will the regulations make it easier to get an idea of what the Government intend to do about importing toxic waste from developed countries?
Secondly, I am concerned about the ability of the regulations to reduce the conflict surrounding projects with major environmental implications. Every hon. Member will be aware that the construction of the M3 through Twyford down is one of the most controversial and environmentally damaging projects under way in the United Kingdom. The scheme has been bitterly opposed by many people, both locally and nationally. Within the past week the conflict has degenerated into violence and thuggery against protesters on Twyford down.
The inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment of the scheme, and of assessment of the benefits of alternative schemes, has been one of the consistent themes behind opposition to cutting a major road through the down. The absence of good assessment and decent information has disillusioned environmentalists throughout the United Kingdom, and has been a source of dispute with the European Commission.
Having listened to the debate, and recognising how much of the information has been subject to local inquiries, I wonder whether the regulations would enable better environmental information to be made available to the public. It is certainly true that the deep and widespread belief that the environmental consequences of the M3 cutting have been ignored has directly fuelled continuing protests against the motorway in recent months. They also fuelled the violent scene on the down last week.
I have spoken to reputable witnesses, and it has been widely reported in the press that the peaceful protesters on Twyford down were subjected to unprecedented violence by the employees of private security firms—violence that took place under the eyes of the police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That is not covered in the regulations. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise queries on what is contained in the regulations, but it is not in order for him to go into detail about local issues.

Mr. Denham: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wished to make it clear that, if environmental information is not made available to the public in an acceptable and usable form, it contributes to a breakdown in public confidence in the planning process and in Government actions, which triggers a chain of events. At Twyford down, that led to peaceful protests and a response by private security firms and—I am told—by the police, which I find utterly unacceptable.
The House must face up to the question whether the regulations will give the public sufficient confidence in the planning processes for projects such as the M3 and

whether they will lead to a consensus that the Government are acting properly. If the regulations contribute to that, they are helpful. If they fail to lead to that consensus, they are not.
People who have studied the regulations in detail have mentioned exclusions on the grounds of confidentiality, on the grounds that projects are subject to public inquiries —as are motorways—and on the grounds that they are subject to international law, which presumably refers to the European Community challenge as to whether the M3 scheme has been planned properly.
The regulations will not restore public confidence. If it is not restored, protests of the sort that I described will take place. Young people with what some may view as eccentric or unusual life styles are Thatcher's children. They have never known a Government with values different from the materialistic and anti-environmentalist attitudes of this Government. That is why they became involved in the protest. If the Government wish to restore widespread confidence in their planning processes, good environmental information must be made available.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance. I accept that I have stretched the debate a little beyond the narrow legalistic terms of the regulations, but it is important to note that the sort of conflicts that have been witnessed recently stem from a breakdown of public confidence in the planning process. Therefore, the regulations are not dry legalistic matters, but relate to the way in which the Government and our society conduct their affairs without conflict and by consensus.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We are better off with the regulations than without them, but they do not go far enough. They could have been so much more and so much better.
Access to information on the environment is fundamentally important to environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, to individuals who have an interest in environmental protection and to legislators. It is also essential to business and industry, and the regulations fail to address the needs of business and industry.
There is in the regulations an assumption that confidentiality is important to business. It is a bureaucrat's assumption. Access to a free market in information on the environment is important to business. The regulations allow too many bureaucrats to put too many obstructions in the way of people seeking information to which they should have a right.
The taxpayer will often have paid, through grants or contracts, for information to be collated and, in principle, access should be denied only in rare cases. The opportunities that the regulations provide for bureaucratic obstruction are legion. For example, regulation 4(2)(d) allows unfinished data or information to be kept confidential. That is much too broad. Organisations could unreasonably withhold information on the excuse that it forms part of a larger and still incomplete study. That may allow important information to be withheld almost indefinitely.
Regulation 4(2)(e) allows information to be restricted if it relates to commercial or industrial information or affects any intellectual property.
There is a nice restrictive definition of what relates to the environment in regulation 2(2)(a), but when we come later to the nature of information relating to commercial or industrial information, it is left open. It simply refers to "information relating to". It does not have to be the actual confidential information itself. Any information which relates to any other information which may be confidential can also be excluded. Again, that is much too broad an exclusion.
Yes, there is a legitimate area of business and product secrecy. Businesses will want to protect some of their processes. But business also has a right to know. I am looking here just at the way in which business would view the matter. A free market in industrial and commercial information is to be encouraged to enable all companies to take advantage of best practice and to ensure that they protect the environment. Regulation 4(2)(e) gives licence to bureaucratic secrecy and it encourages the wrong thing in terms of the needs of business.
In addition, that regulation is either badly worded or it simply says that there is a right to exclude information relating to any intellectual property. That is a definition with a real blunderbuss approach to the law. Business needs an open market to information, and as open a market as possible, to ensure that it can influence legislation to be able to seize the initiative in a new green market for products and to ensure that, unknown to itself, it is not polluting. For example, if data show that a business is polluting in a way previously not known, it is important that that information should be readily available.
Towards the end of the 1990s and into the 21st century, business will move into a much greener market. Whether from Europe or domestically, there are likely to be more laws to protect the environment, perhaps new taxes and new customer requirements. All that must be planned for and anticipated, and new investment programmes have to be framed, within the context of knowledge about the environment. If some of that important knowledge is not available to business because the bureaucrats who hold it are able to use the clauses to restrict it, business will not be able to be involved in the early stages of deciding what sort of environmental regulations are required.
In Germany and other EC countries, the large companies have lobbyists who are always ready to become involved at an early stage in framing legislation to regulate the European economy. All too often, German businesses can become involved at the beginning in framing Euro-regulations in a way that will benefit them. That is because they have access to information supplied by the Government. Under the regulations, such Government support may well be denied to industry in this country. Business in Britain is not encouraged to become involved at an early stage in framing regulations. There is an unwillingness to allow information to be made available to British companies. The Government should encourage business to become involved.
I am lucky enough to have in my constituency a 3M factory at Atherstone. That company has a very good attitude towards the environment. It wants to be involved and to have as much information as possible about its processes and the products that it will provide for customers in the green market of the future. That company

needs access to as much information as it can get, because it has to make long-term commercial decisions about the sort of future market in which it will operate. The regulations do not address the needs of that business or of other businesses which should be encouraged to deal with regulations at an early stage. Access to information that can be used to frame arguments in the EC and in Whitehall is essential. If local authorities or the Government hold back on such information, it could have a long-term impact on jobs.
Out there is a large, new green market which is estimated to be worth £50 billion. Many consumers are interested in buying products with a green tinge, products that are environmentally sound. They want to buy from companies in which they can have faith, and those companies must be able to demonstrate integrity. In order to be in that green market, businesses must invest. Their products in which they have invested so much may have been subjected to research, the data on which are controlled by the Government or by local authorities and not revealed. As a result of the regulations, bureaucrats will be able to withhold that information, and those British companies will not be able to take full advantage of a market in which they might well have been the leaders.
I say again that the regulations do not respond to the needs of business. Companies must be able to anticipate the changes in environmental legislation. Governments may well legislate on the basis of information that is available to them and which they will not divulge. Therefore, businesses do not know about it and cannot make essential plans. This bureaucrats charter will prevent information being revealed about the environment. The Government pride themselves on being pro-business, but the regulations have a narrow view about what is good for business. They should be about open information that will help citizens and business. Instead, it is about how to create conditions for restricting information. It is a failed opportunity.
In some ways, inherent in the regulations is a restriction on information that might be available in other EC countries. That could damage British industry and British jobs in the long term. It is time that the Government reconsidered the needs of business in access to information. They should realise that a free market in information on the environment is now essential. Business is moving into a different market position, and it must have access to information. The regulations do not provide it with that access, so they should be reconsidered. As has already been said, they will result only in more lawyers earning more money from more litigation in an attempt to get greater access to information. That is not the way to approach these matters.
When I mentioned information being available in other EC countries, the Minister shook his head—obviously suggesting that it would not be available. He kids himself. The contact of many other countries with their business communities in providing information is much more open, direct and valuable than the Government's attitude to our businesses. That is evident from the regulations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman's valid points—and, indeed, to the valid points raised by other hon. Members. It appears that there is concern within the Department —for example, the quote from the official—and it is clear that other Departments have put pressure on the


Department of the Environment. It may be that it is those other Departments that do not understand the benefits of more open access for the commercial world. It would be interesting if the Minister specifically answered the question about where the pressure to restrict information has come from—his Department or elsewhere. If we knew that, we would know where to apply pressure in the months ahead.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be useful if the Minister identified the culprits. They are prepared to put not only the environment at risk, but many businesses that want both to protect the environment and to take advantage of the big green pay-off that will be available if they manage to get a lead in the green market of the future. If there are culprits among Ministers and bureaucrats in Whitehall, the House and the public have a right to know the identity of those enemies of the environment. They may not be the Minister and his Department, but we must know who they are.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One thing is certain: during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament there has been a huge change in people's perception of the environment. That is no better demonstrated than in my constituency, where there were 15 or 16 pits when I first became a Member of the House. Now there are only four, and if the Government have their way there will be none in north Derbyshire in a few weeks. I hope that the great public show of determination during recent weeks will persuade the Government to think again.
Because of that change in people's perception, many more of our constituents are now aware of their rights and powers in environmental protection which hitherto they would not have thought to use. It used to be argued that, if a Member of Parliament had a middle-class constituency and loads of suburbia-land, he had a great number of complaints about the environment. My experience in Bolsover over recent years with the Coalite issue has been staggering. Many of those directly connected with the firm and many who work in the pits have wanted to exercise over and over their right to express an opinion on the environment.
That is why, when I listened to my hon. Friends and others discussing the regulations, I was drawn to the conclusion that the Government were simply seeking the least common denominator among the regulations. They have obviously said, "How can we best use the regulations without giving too much away? How can we protect our business friends who pay large sums of money to the Tory party at election time?"—as opposed to the business people my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred to. My guess is that that is what motivates Tory Members in everything that they do. If they add a little flavour and try to attack trade unionism at the same time, it adds grist to the mill. That is the angle from which the Tories approach such matters. The previous Prime Minister used to ask whose side people were on before they were appointed.
The regulations would help companies such as Coalite Management in my constituency. Coalite has got by pretty nicely as a result of the Tory Government. In the past 18 months, it has put three farmers out of business, and made the population of Bolsover and Shuttlewood live in fear.
The Government have now come along with regulations that will fortify such firms, which do not want to let people into their secrets.
In the Evening Standard the other day I spotted the fact that Coalite's shares had fallen to 6.5p. I also find that the National Farmers Union is belatedly suing Coalite for compensation for the three farmers who have been out of business for some 18 months.
I then hear that a planted question was tabled by a Derbyshire Tory Member today, asking about dioxins in my constituency. That hon. Member has never raised the matter before and I am bound to conclude that some fishy business is going on. When I saw the regulations, it all added up: the Government are operating on the basis of tightening the regulations to their benefit in the finest possible way while at the same time giving the green light to a beleaguered company called Coalite by saying that certain things involving farmers can now take place. From what I hear from the farmers, that can only benefit the firm. The Minister knows a little about that subject, as he used to be in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Why have the Government found it necessary to have that question planted and stage this reply about the matters affecting Coalite? Why, under the regulations, do the Government always favour their friends?
Were it not Christmas, with many hon. Members already gone, we should have voted against the regulations.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman can still do so.

Mr. Skinner: I am searching for a teller, because one Member cannot divide on his own. I am toying with the idea at present. Some of my hon. Friends have said that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. Perhaps we shall sustain that argument for tonight.
Why do the Government feel it necessary to give Coalite the green light when it is in trouble, with its shares having plummeted, the National Farmers Union suing it, and the National Rivers Authority having taken out a case against it for river pollution? Why cannot the Government just sit idly by? Why do they feel the need to rescue the company's directors?
The regulations will not make it easier for people who are protesting against Coalite and the thousands of people who have signed a petition to stop an incinerator at Coalite. Is it possible, under the regulations, for the people who do not want the new incinerator to seek redress from the Government? Do they help them? What I have heard from my hon. Friends makes it sound as if they do not. It sounds as though they will not give them any assistance, and I thought that the regulations were to help people not only to be informed about environmental protection, but to protest against what they see in their locality. From what I gather, they will not be able to do anything of the kind.
The Minister is well informed on this subject, so I hope that he will answer in the affirmative and make it clear that, as a result of the regulations, the people in Bolsover who are protesting against the new incinerator to be built by Coalite will stand a chance of stopping it.

Mr. Maclean: I shall respond first to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). As usual, I admire the way that he can walk into the Chamber reasonably near the end of our debate and pick up the thread of the argument and still make his local case on behalf of his constituents—in this instance over the dioxin and Coalite case. He will be aware from his reading of the regulations, which implement an EC directive—it is intriguing that he does not, at the moment, intend to vote against them—and from my opening remarks that his constituents will have considerable new rights to obtain information from the relevant bodies and organisations. He will be able to decide, from the careful consideration that he will have given my opening remarks—wherever he may have heard them—whether Coalite would consider itself a relevant body to give information.
I cannot comment on what was presumably a written question, which may have been answered by another Department. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, when the question was answered, I was still in Brussels negotiating for his constituents even more rights over access to information. It must be a matter for him to decide, on his reading of the regulations, whether they are of as much help to his constituents as I believe they are.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister entirely misses the point. The question is not whether Coalite is a relevant body, because clearly it is, but whether Coalite will take refuge in the commercial confidentiality clauses in the regulations to claim that information that is material to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is commercially confidential. That is the loophole that it will use.

Mr. Maclean: It is clear that relevant bodies are under a duty to provide information, but that there are certain exceptions to that, although each case must be decided on its merits. If the bodies fail to provide information, those who wish access to it have the right of redress.
I have one point to make about public bodies and Departments in relation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In my time in the Ministry—if anything, that trend will have strengthened over the past few months—it has made available all relevant information which it had on the dioxin incident, commissioned research and made available as much of the resulting information as possible. I should not speculate at the Dispatch Box, but I suspect that the National Farmers Union has only now been able to take legal action because of the Government's information, which the research came up with, which was published and which the hon. Gentleman's constituents are able to make use of. If they are to take action, I shall not comment further on the case because I should not want to prejudice it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) came along with a long wish list of what he would ideally like in terms of freedom of information law. He seems to have forgotten that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is committed—the Prime Minister has committed the whole Government—to reviewing Government information access. A paper will be published in the new year dealing with the wider question of access to all Government information.
The hon. Gentleman's wish list is simply not relevant when we are faithfully trying to implement an EC directive

such as this. I suspect that his party's view is that we should always faithfully implement EC directives; if we depart from that and come up with something different that would bring us into the European Court in no time at all, and presumably he would not be pleased.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would review progress on legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in a splendid intervention—adding to his brilliant speech—reminded us that we are under a duty to report on progress within four years—

Mr. Skinner: He is after the Minister's job.

Mr. Maclean: In many circumstances, I would be happy to hand it over, especially when answering technical or legal debates such as this one.
In Brussels this morning we reached agreement on a unique British initiative on reporting and reviewing legislation. All Ministers of the Environment Council were unanimous on this. The EC is good at churning out information; it has not been particularly good at reviewing legislation or monitoring its progress. At our instigation, the Commission produced a paper that received unanimous approval. In future Environment Councils—I hope that the practice will spread to all others as well—we will find time every year to review existing legislation, to report on progress and to amend legislation where necessary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I remember that the Government set that as one of their objectives for the presidency. It is wholly commendable. The Minister said that I was inconsistent in arguing for the implementation of the directive at the same time as arguing for the widest possible freedom of information. There is no inconsistency in that. As he well knows, the directive would have allowed the Government to do more than they did, but they refused to use that leeway to the full. They have implemented the document too narrowly—that is the criticism.

Mr. Maclean: I reject that, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that this was one of our presidential objectives. I have today answered a written question setting out our achievements over the past 48 hours in Brussels. The achievement of this objective was only one of many. They include the drastic tightening up of the Copenhagen agreement on chlorofluorocarbons and ozone. We shall return to look at hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide in the new year—another British aim. This morning we unanimously agreed the fifth action programme. We have drastically tightened up on van emissions; and we have given a full agenda to Denmark to go on with, even though we inherited a rather lighter agenda. I hope the the whole House will read that written answer. It has been a spectacular triumph, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on it. We like to have our little triumphs to add to the Edinburgh triumph.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked me about Northern Ireland. He knows that separate legislative procedures operate for Northern Ireland, and it will be up to the Northern Ireland office to implement the regulations as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen if someone who has approached a relevant body for information gets an inadequate response. The inquirer has a right of redress if he or she feels that the response has


been inadequate. The hon. Gentleman also said that often inquirers might not have a clue what information they wanted. I would say: tough luck. An inquirer should not be able to ask for all the information that a body has and then fish through it to see whether anything hits the fan. He must be more specific than that.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of what he saw as an obstruction in Whitehall. If there were any truth in that, I would not tonight be urging the House to agree to regulations that apply to all Government Departments.
We have got agreement across Whitehall. We would not have been able to reach agreement two years ago unless we had such agreement. The hon. Gentleman shows his complete lack of knowledge of how government works. Before we go to any European Council and agree legislation, all Departments must, of course, be in agreement; otherwise, we would not sign up to any legislation. We reach such agreement automatically, as a matter of course. Whitehall was in agreement two years ago when we agreed the directive under the Irish presidency. We were in agreement when we produced the regulations. There is no obstacle course.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Maclean: No, I will not give way. It is pointless.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) asked whether individual constituency cases will be covered by the regulations. All I can say is that they give the public many more rights to acquire environmental information from many public and relevant bodies. There is one point on which I must take issue with him. He must not inadvertently mislead the House on the subject of toxic waste by saying that we have not announced our policy. I made our policy abundantly plain in Question Time two weeks ago. We had yet another success at the meeting of European Environment Ministers this morning, when we managed to get agreement on how we would implement the Basle convention on the trans-frontier movement of toxic waste.
We have made our policy clear. We fought hard to include the self-sufficiency principle in the regulations on the trans-frontier movement of shipments of waste. We fought hard for it and we got it. That will allow us to draw up national plans, which we are starting on now, in readiness for when the EC regulations take effect. Ratification of the Basle convention is a matter for the Community—we cannot ratify it unilaterally, because that would be illegal. Once that convention is ratified and the regulations take effect in 1994, we intend to have our national plans in place. They will allow us to turn off the tap on the importation of toxic waste from major developed countries.

Mr. Denham: The Minister has just said, as he has on a number of occasions, that the regulations will allow our Government to turn off the tap on toxic waste imports. That is not in dispute. However, we have not heard yet from the Minister that the Government will use that power to turn off the tap. I will be entirely satisfied if the Minister can give a pledge that toxic waste imports from developed countries will stop.

Mr. Maclean: I have made that pledge before. The only reason that we argued for that power to be included in the regulations was to use it, not to leave it on the shelf. I am drawing up plans to take advantage of, use and implement

the regulations so that I can turn off that tap. It is not a question of just having the power to do that, otherwise there would be no point in agreeing to the regulations.

Mr. Denham: That is the first time that pledge has been given.

Mr. Maclean: Please check back in Hansard.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) claimed that bureaucratic obstruction would somehow destroy the ability of British industry to seize the green initiative. That is absolute nonsense. He was unable to cite one instance where the regulations that we were putting through tonight depart from the directive by one jot or tittle. We are implementing an EC directive, and it also happens to be British Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman was unduly pessimistic about the way in which British industry will react to the initiative. In the past few months, I have addressed a number of seminars of representatives of British industry on matters such as eco-audit, eco-labelling, and the follow-up to the Earth summit at Rio. The message has got through to British industry that the environment and environmental equipment, techniques and technology represent mega bucks in the future.
If industries want customers, staff to work for them, their shareholders to be happy, insurance companies to insure them and the banks to lend them money, they better be clean and green in the future. They should develop such products. That is why an unprecedented number of industries are applying for information on the new British standard, BS 7750. That is a positive sign.
The hon. Gentleman also said that many individuals would want to know whether the products from certain companies are environmentally friendly. We are keen, of course, on eco-labelling, and it is a pity that there have been some problems in the EC in getting some of the rules and systems for that labelling up and running. We have clearly said that, unless things move much more quickly, we reserve the right to take our own action—although I do not want to do that; I want to stick with an EC-wide regulation.
This morning, we nearly secured agreement on the eco-audit scheme. Under the scheme, all EC companies that show that they have environmentally friendly policies will satisfy the requirements of the legislation. We encountered severe difficulties last night: seven major objections were advanced by other countries. None the less, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment persuaded all those countries to withdraw their objections—with the exception of Germany, which maintained a general reserve. I hope that we shall secure agreement early in the new year. To get the whole eco-audit regulation up and running would be a tremendous achievement, and I hope that Germany will appreciate the wishes of the other 11 countries.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) came up with what seemed to be a strong list of objections. He presented seven points of substance which, he seemed to think, proved that the regulations were inadequate, or that we were not implementing the directive in some respect. To be fair, he began by saying that, generally speaking, the regulations were very good, and that we had made considerable progress.
A casual observer would probably have concluded that there was something in the hon. Gentleman's seven points


—until, that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth demolished every one of them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend: I have never seen a more competent demolition job applied to an Opposition spokesman's argument. All seven points were proved to be spurious, and my hon. Friend demonstrated that we had faithfully implemented the directive without departing from it.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister address himself to the one point with which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) agreed—the inclusion in the regulations of a provision limiting access to information on matters relating to public and local inquiries?

Mr. Maclean: I shall come to that in a moment.
Let me deal with another aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I consider very important. I had always considered the hon. Gentleman to be fair—slightly misguided, perhaps, but fair. Tonight, however, he was very unfair when he inadvertently gave the House a misleading impression of the terms of a written answer that I gave. Let me place on record exactly what I said.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that I had given a duplicitous reply to a question about the waste shipments regulation. He seemed to suggest that I had said that we would implement it and ensure that we had national plans, having said in an answer six days earlier that there would be no changes to existing UK law and practice. In fact, I answered two questions together. I was asked what steps I intended to take
to implement the EC regulations agreed on the supervision and control of shipments of toxic waste; and when he will publish the regulations".
I was also asked whether I would make it my policy, in implementing the proposals,
to ensure that toxic waste is disposed of as close as possible to its source within the United Kingdom and that no waste is imported for commercial gain.
In answer to the first question, I said:
The regulation will be published in the Official Journal after adoption by the Council and is likely to apply 15 months after publication. We shall be giving careful consideration to the application of the regulation's provisions in relation to imports for final disposal.
In answer to the second question, I said:
We expect no change as a result of the regulation to existing practice within the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 289.]
In view of my assurances now and at the last Question Time that we are keen to implement the regulation on toxic waste imports and to ratify the Basle convention, and that I shall draw up national self-sufficiency plans which will allow me, for want of a better phrase, to turn off the tap of toxic waste, will the hon. Gentleman accept my assurances and that he has misled himself about the interpretation of my answer? Will he kindly say that my explanation is correct?

Mr. Chris Smith: I am happy to accept the Minister's explanation, but the distinction that he draws between the two parts of his answer is not specified and it is not clear from the answer as it stands on the printed page. He has, however, admirably clarified what he meant, and tonight he has given us for the first time a clear assurance that the Government intend to stop the importation of toxic waste

from other developed countries. That is an extremely welcome assurance. We have been demanding it for months and we are glad to hear it from the Minister.

Mr. Maclean: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. It was obvious from the answer that I was answering two separate questions: it is slightly disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise. There is no need for me to repeat what I said about toxic waste. We shall take advantage of all the provisions in the regulations that will allow us to make national plans as far as the EC regulations allow us to go in turning off the tap of toxic waste from developed countries.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth asked about local inquiries. The discretion to withhold the information in regulation 4(2)(b) will be exercised in a few cases where such information is not automatically available—for example, where it may be withdrawn from the record or background documents and advice. I accept that this is a complex issue. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend and to discuss it with him.
We have had quite a good debate. I am sorry that some Opposition Members, while saying that they support the regulations and their party's policy on the EC and are keen to implement EC regulations, were then so carping about the fact that we have faithfully implemented the regulations I did not hear a single comment from an Opposition Member to suggest that we have failed in any way to implement the provisions of the directive.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech, and I must wind up.
It would be foolish in the extreme for us to introduce regulations that we did not believe implemented an EC regulation, because we know full well that that would land us in the European Court of Justice. We consulted widely on the regulations and prepared them carefully. They provide new rights of access to environmental information to 56 million people in this country. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, procedurally, nothing would have prevented the Government from laying before the House the Northern Ireland regulations—the missing part of the jigsaw of the regulations that we have just debated—after the last debate and before the two orders that you are about to put to the House? Could that have been done, because if it could people should realise that the Government chose not to do so?

Madam Speaker: That is rather hypothetical, because no such order has been presented to me.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together items Nos. 3 and 4 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION BY DISABLED PERSONS) BILL

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Expo '92 (Seville)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: Between 20 April and 12 October this year, Seville hosted the first universal exposition to be held in Europe since the Brussels exposition of 1958. One hundred and eight nations displayed the best that they could offer. As with the Olympics, the Spanish showed their flair for organisation. The event, which was fittingly proclaimed the eighth wonder of the world, brought back fond memories of the 1951 Festival of Britain and was an ideal opportunity for the British Government to show the very best of Britain.
In April this year, expectations were high. The Today newspaper wrote:
a £28 million showcase of British excellence will be the main attraction at EXPO 92. The British Pavilion, a steel and glass structure the size of Westminster Abbey, will bring lucrative business deals to fifty UK sponsoring firms.
The pavilion, which reputedly cost £25 million of taxpayers' money—perhaps the Minister will say whether that was so—was built for that occasion and for that occasion only. It had a six-month shelf life. Other pavilions were built with a second purpose in mind once the expo was over. For example, the Spanish pavilion was sold to Spanish universities and is being put to good use. Am I right in presuming that there is no function for the British pavilion and that taxpayers are paying £25 million which is then to be written off?
The Department of Trade and Industry claimed:
Britain will have a first-class pavilion to demonstrate her originality and the scale of her resurgence in many areas of manufacturing, technology and services.
Tragically, the reality was very different.
The British pavilion was on one of the main promenades where some of the larger pavilions were based. It was not far from the United States pavilion, but it was a pity that our Government did not take a leaf from the Americans' book. The American pavilion was funded not by the taxpayer but business sponsorship. I am told that the entire bill for the British pavilion is to be picked up by the British taxpayer.
Our pavilion looked like some others—water flowing from the roof and a pond below. That seems to be the favoured design today. The only trouble was that there was nothing much inside other than a procession of escalators transporting people to small floor areas which were supposed to reflect the essence of Britain. There were three or four displays illustrating Britain as a leader in the scientific world.
Oddly enough, the public seemed to judge the success of each country's exhibition by the length of the queue outside. The question was, "How long is the queue at such and such a pavilion?" Canada topped the list with a five-hour wait but the United Kingdom's queue was only about 40 minutes, in spite of the fact that the designers had so designed the pavilion that there was a bottleneck at the entrance which restricted the number of people who could enter.
The governing factor was the number who could watch a video being shown in the entrance to the pavilion. In the meantime, the rest of the pavilion was virtually empty. It was a pity that the video made so little mention of our heritage: our grand buildings, the history of our


monarchy, our traditions, the beauty of our countryside, the peculiar British institutions, the wonders of Scotland—the highlands and the islands—the mountains and language of Wales and the special flavour of Northern Ireland.
Once the eight-minute film had finished, there was a rush to the escalators like the first day of a Harrods sale or the Northern line during the rush hour. On one floor there was a Land Rover perched in the middle of nowhere; on another, in a sealed container, Marks and Spencer underwear. Such was the dearth of products that it looked as though the bailiffs had made a recent visit to the inside of the British pavilion. Perhaps it was a true, but unfortunate, reflection of our country. Certainly those experiencing Britain through the pavilion must have come to the sad conclusion that the country must be nearly bankrupt. That is not so. This country has history, imagination, flavour, creativity, skills, ingenuity, a race of various cultures, colours and religions, a variety of different political views, democracy and a rich culture. It is a country in which it is safe to invest and it is a unique place in which to live.
The public wanted souvenirs, but I am afraid that they were nowhere to be found. All the other pavilions had stickers and souvenirs and people rushed to get them. In the British pavilion, there was none. At the information desk, I was told that there were no stickers, no pins, no tourist information and no shop in which to buy things. That was not entirely true. There was a shop, but I am afraid that it was not doing much business: a young man who was hovering around the shell of the shop confessed in hushed tones that the shop was in fact in liquidation and that the liquidator was somewhere about, but not easily located.
What other country at a worldwide exposition would tell the world that the sole concessionaire to a great pavilion, which had won the franchise against all other competition and been granted this special favour by the DTI, had gone bust? Perhaps, of course, it was a somewhat novel idea of the DTI that the pavilion was designed to exploit our skill as a country in dealing with bankruptcy. Perhaps, after all, this was part of the DTI's grand design. Perhaps it was proud that we were the only country able to provide on-the-spot advice on liquidations. The bareness of the area and the windswept look of the first floor gave the impression of one of the British seaside resorts off-season—Clacton, perhaps.
In its wisdom, the DTI selected Bickerton Associates as exclusive concessionaire for all the products displayed in the pavilion. Bickerton was the sole distributor and was appointed as such. No doubt the DTI officials were most cautious when selecting the concessionaire, bearing in mind that it would reflect the business profile of Great Britain to the world. The DTI is the guardian of trade and industry. Those who dealt with Bickerton took it that the DTI had looked carefully at the antecedents of the company, its track record, its management and the acumen of its directors. All industries in Britain wishing to exhibit or to sell goods in the pavilion had to do so through Bickerton. It was an exclusive franchise.
It is odd that DTI officials did not ascertain that an identical company, run by the same directors, had been struck off the Companies house records in 1989. That

company had failed to submit accounts and annual returns. Could one conceive of anyone, let alone the DTI, appointing as the United Kingdom's ambassador a company whose board comprised the directors of a bankrupt company?
Bickerton representatives, together with DTI officials, selected British companies to sell stock at the shop. Bickerton requested advance payments of 8 per cent. of projected sales from each of the participating companies, including Dartington Crystal, whose managing director lives in my constituency. He was asked to send an advance of £10,200 to Bickerton and Bickerton was apparently supposed to forward that money, as an 8 per cent. advance, to the DTI. I should like the Minister to tell the House whether that money was actually sent to the DTI or whether Bickerton pocketed it. Bickerton took its stock to Spain without paying any of the British companies for it, and it started to trade. I should perhaps mention that we are not talking about peanuts but about £500,000-worth of goods or more.
The number of people visiting the pavilion was unfortunately far below the DTI's expectations. That is no wonder when one realises that there was not much inside to see. The DTI predicted, quite wrongly, 18,000 people a day. It now says that it got the figure wrong and that the actual figure was 12,000 a day. The British companies involved say that the real figure was 9,000 a day. Other pavilions had double or treble those numbers because people wanted to go and see what they had to offer. Understandably, sales were far lower than had been envisaged. The sales were less than £400,000, compared with Bickerton's forecast of £1.4 million and the DTI's own inflated sales forecast of £2.4 million.
Bickerton went into receivership in August, leaving 54 companies stranded and owed more than £500,000. The companies have just recently had their deposits returned after a battle with DTI officials. As for the rest of the money owed—£40,000 in the case of Dartington Crystal—the DTI seems to be washing its hands of the matter, saying that it is not the Department's responsibility. Who is responsible? The DTI introduced Bickerton to all the companies, saying that it was Government-appointed, Government-selected and Government-approved. The DTI's claim that it is not responsible for the concessionaire's activity is one of the shabbiest attempts to avoid responsibility that I have ever heard.
The DTI was involved in the pavilion's activities up to its eyeballs. When the concessionaire, Bickerton, discovered that under Spanish law it could not trade as the main retailer at Expo 92 without registering as a Spanish company, the DTI took on the main retailer role and banked all the credit card receipts in a DTI account set up in Seville. I am told that the account still exists. The Minister may wish to be briefed on the subject—I am prepared to give him time to be so—but will he tell the House how much money there is in the secret Seville account? Why did we open an account in Seville? When will the Minister get the money out and pass it over to the companies which have lost so much?
Given that the DTI had an intimate involvement in the retailing operation, it must honour its commitments by repaying the suppliers who were persuaded to offer to sell goods at the exhibition. After all, we are the party of small firms, and I should have thought that the Minister would want to salvage some pride from what has become an appalling affair.
The scandal was not hidden away in the corridors of Whitehall: it was there for all to see at the most prestigious trade fair ever. That is the sort of incompetence that one might expect from a third-world dictatorship or a banana republic, not from a member of the exclusive G7 club of industrialised nations and the country that holds the presidency of the EC.
As well as there being no pins or stickers, no propaganda or shop, and nothing for visitors to take away, those in the pavilion could not use the computers to show Britain's high-tech profile. I do not know whether the minister knows the appalling catalogue of disasters. The Apricot computer system crashed two months after it was installed, and was inoperative for three months, so it is understandable that there was not much throughput in the British pavilion: there was nothing very much for people to do—they could not buy or see anything; all they could do was go up and down the wretched escalators.
After queueing for about 30 minutes, watching two films, travelling up and down the building and searching in vain for any little reminder of our day, I thought that nothing would be better than a refreshing cup of tea. I was with my brother-in-law, who works for the EC Commission, and we decided to go down to the basement and enjoy a nice cup of British tea. I thought that Twining or Jacksons would go down a treat, so we went to the bowels of the pavilion and asked, "May we have a pot of tea?" A smiling student offered us a teabag. "Cucumber sandwiches?" asked my brother-in-law. We were offered a scone the size of a football and as dry as the Nevada desert.
The cakes were Spanish; the place was messy, undistinguished and unpleasant—like a typical British greasy spoon café. There were dirty plates and cups everywhere, napkins all over the floor and the staff seemed to be inexperienced students. I had heard rumors that the café was not only undistinguished, but was selling non-British goods, which was certainly borne out by the cakes. We had a battle even to get English wine in the pavilion.
I heard about the appalling things going on at Expo 92 in June, and posed a number of parliamentary questions to the Minister of State about English wine. On 30 June I asked whether he would remove all Spanish wine from the British pavilion. It seemed sensible to have English wine at a British pavilion.
Needless to say, the Minister said that he would not remove the Spanish wine. Even though it was the British pavilion, he wanted to keep the Spanish wine:
Although I have insisted that the catering concessionaire makes available a range of English wine"—
that was good of him—
this alone does not provide the choice of price and varieties required to run a commercial operation."—[Official Report, 30 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 530.]
I am puzzled: was it the British pavilion or the Spanish pavilion that we were running?
Then we had the problem with Bollinger, which insisted that no English sparkling wine should be sold in the pavilion because it had paid to sponsor the champagne. So all English sparkling wine was out. At this point, I should declare an interest: I am the adviser—originally, the honorary adviser—to the English Vineyards Association, which represents 200 commercial vineyards and was pretty sore that English champagne could not be sold in the pavilion. English champagne is delicious. One can buy it for £7 or £8 and, at a recent blind tasting, the English

sparkling wine was declared to be as good as the non-vintage champagne—a view that I can certainly support.
Neither sparkling nor plain English wine was served on the occasion of the British national day. I believe that Spanish wine was served on that occasion. In his answer of 30 June, the Minister said that no English wine was suitable for the occasion of the British national day. What is wrong with Impresario, a sparkling white wine which has recently been ranked with the top three non-vintage champagnes, even though it cannot officially be called champagne because it is English? What is wrong with us that we will not promote our own products, and think that everything that we buy from abroad must be better?
It seems to me that the Department of Trade and Industry officials were not up to the job. It would be invidious, in this short debate, to mention names, but I will let the Minister have the list. I hope that all the officials concerned have been promoted, because that is probably all that can be done with them. I was not so much upset and angry as dismayed that such a sloppy and bad impression should be given not only to millions of foreign visitors but to the renowned British companies which had been invited to sell their goods.
We now reach the epilogue. Many of the pavilions had water themes, and ours was no exception—the water came down over the front of the pavilion, and there were pools of water, rather like a moat, around it. It was clear that the people visiting our pavilion felt that something had gone wrong with Great Britain. They were saddened by the image. They obviously had some affection for our people and some understanding of our plight. Unlike any other pond anywhere in all the acres of the site, our pond had coins thrown into it. Clearly, the public of the world realised that Britain was in a bad way, and threw coins into the moat to show that they understood our problem. I was concerned that there was no liquidator in the shop; perhaps he was down there in his gumboots picking up the coins to help the shop to make good its losses.
Such was my experience of our great British pavilion that I feel that the DTI has something to answer for. I would not trust any of the DTI officials concerned to run a business in which I was involved, and I certainly would not give them a chance to spend my money.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am well aware of the keen interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) in promoting British industry—an interest that is shared by every hon. Member. We all admire and respect his unflagging energy and vigour. My hon. Friend is also a firm believer in "buy British" campaigns, especially if they include the sale of English wines. I recall that my hon. Friend tabled no fewer than 12 parliamentary questions in March and June about the availability of English wines at the British pavilion at Expo. I shall return to the specifics of English wine if time allows.
In summer 1988, the Prime Minister, then Mrs. Thatcher, made it clear that Britain's contribution to Expo was to be
the best, the very best";
and from the reports that I have received, it was. That is not to say, in fairness to my hon. Friend, that there were no lessons to learn from our participation. With the benefit


of hindsight, there were. But, as I shall explain, the British pavilion at Expo' 92 attracted a great deal of interest and a great deal of comment—the vast majority of it favourable comment.
The British pavilion was acclaimed as the most significant and attractive pavilion on the whole Expo site—and there were more than 100 pavilions from which to choose. It was the envy of many other national participants. The man-made water wall along the length of the frontage attracted universal admiration. It was technologically the most advanced pavilion, both in structure and design. Moreover, it won four awards for construction and design and one for the audiovisual presentation, and has been entered for three more.
During the planning stage, an early decision was taken that the pavilion should be truly designed and built in Britain. With the exception of groundworks, that objective was achieved. The architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and the supporting professional team were all well-established United Kingdom practices, and were all appointed on a competitive basis. To conform with Spanish law, we were required to appoint a local associate architect to advise on the requirements of the building regulations in the locality. That role did not include any creative input.
Construction work on the pavilion was tendered competitively in the United Kingdom, in the form of approximately 50 works packages.

Mr. Steen: I am complaining not about the design but about what, or what was not, inside the pavilion.

Mr. Leigh: I shall get to that, but my hon. Friend has made some serious allegations about our efforts, and it is important to set the record straight.
The structure was built in the United Kingdom and shipped to Seville for erection under the supervision of British engineers and technicians. Unskilled labour was recruited locally. The supervisory management contractors were also from the United Kingdom.
The interior design is obviously of particular interest to my hon. Friend and he has been critical of the interior arrangement of the pavilion. I respect his views, even if I cannot share them. However, he may not be aware that private sector management consultants were appointed to examine Spanish perceptions of the United Kingdom and of the British people before detailed planning of the interior began.
The consultants' findings were: the British were viewed as being not very friendly; there was a lack of awareness of United Kingdom artistic and technical creativity; there was a strong interest in the United Kingdom as a tourist destination; and the Spanish response to British fashion was negative.
Those findings were taken fully into account in the interior design developed by Conran Design, which was chosen by a panel of judges representing the private sector and the sponsoring Government Departments. Conran's interpretation projected an outward-looking, thrusting and forward-looking nation. That was reflected in different ways through audio-visual and static displays and through the multi-media theatre production.
The interior layout contained five elements, which each addressed the overall concept: a welcome area, where a

288-screen video presentation invited visitors to discover Britain today; the upper terrace depicting British scientific and engineering achievements in the four elements; the theatre, where a multi-media spectacle showed how future discoveries depended on communications, in which Britain excels in many ways; the lower terrace, where visitors continued to explore the elements; and the concourse, where Royal Doulton, Land Rover and Marks and Spencer displayed examples of original British products.
The consultants who had been commissioned to analyse Spanish perceptions were retained to question visitors to the pavilion. Well over 4,000 interviews were carried out. Most visitors thought that the pavilion was impressive, and 38 per cent. thought it very impressive.
The pavilion aroused increased interest in Britain as a leisure location, and nearly half the visitors left with a more favourable impression. The theatre show was considered excellent by visitors of all nationalities and several said that it was the best that they had visited. The British team of young navigators was highly praised. I hope that that sets straight the record on the interior design of the pavilion.
The British pavilion was one of the largest. It occupied nearly 7,000 sq m and stood 27 m high—almost as high as Westminster abbey. In short, the pavilion was, and remains, a glowing tribute and testimony to British engineering and arthitectural expertise.
The pavilion attracted a total of 2.2 million visitors, which required an orderly throughput of 12,000 visitors per day throughout the six months of the Expo. Some pavilions had a larger throughput but on a free-flow basis, not in such a structured way. Furthermore, no other pavilion had pre-planned that its visitors would spend at least 45 minutes touring the various displays.

Mr. Steen: What will happen to it?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend keeps asking me what will happen to the pavilion. There has been a lot of interest in its future. It is generally recognised that it was one of the best designed and most successful, and there is every possibility that it will be retained on site as part of the science park. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
The organisers predicted, fairly accurately, that there would be a total of 40 million visits during the Expo—an average daily throughput of more than 200,000 visitors. No pavilion, including that of the host nation, Spain, could hope to cater for that number.
Some pavilions allowed a free flow of visitors, as we had done ourselves at other Expos. That was certainly one way to build up impressive numbers, but on this occasion the design team for the British pavilion devised a system under which multilingual navigators escorted groups of 200 visitors through the pavilion at 15-minute intervals.
Even expert opinions vary on the effectiveness of that approach, and my hon. Friend is entitled to be critical. Some are critical that the 2.2 million visitors to the British pavilion, representing a little more than 5 per cent. of the total Expo visits, was too low. Others would argue that to hold captive the attention of more than 2 million visitors for at least 45 minutes was a very laudable achievement.
I believe that there is something to be said in favour of both the brief and the extended visits. On the one hand, more people get at least an impressionistic view of what


Britain has to offer; on the other hand, the 45-minute visitor is likely to go away with a more lasting impression of what he or she has seen.
I should point out that the concessions to operate both the shop and the restaurant in the British pavilion were put out to competitive tender. The successful tenderers for the shop were selected partly on the basis of their experience in operating gift shops in museums and at fairs.
The Department of Trade and Industry tender for the shop concession specified that the products available should be British and of high quality. The selection of products was made by the concessionaire, but the DTI retained the power of veto.
The DTI guaranteed that the products of four British sponsoring companies would be available in the shop, provided that they met the terms set by the concessionaires. In all other respects, the business conducted between the concessionaires and their suppliers was a private commercial matter.
As my hon. Friend has explained, the concessionaire ran into financial difficulties when sales targets were not reached and they could not meet payments due to the suppliers. It is too easy to blame the problems of the shop concessionaires on lack of foresight, but nobody could have predicted that the Expo visitors in the first three months of Expo would come almost entirely from Seville and spend very little.
Nobody could have predicted the financial difficulties faced by a large number of Expo concessionaires. The British pavilion shop was not the only one which failed to reach its sales targets. Nor could anyone have expected the very high entrance fees to Expo to dampen on-site sales so dramatically. [Interruption.] In reply to my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention, let me say that, unlike some states, we were not prepared to subsidise the shops. It was a commercial arrangement.
An unexpectedly high proportion of Spanish visitors brought picnics to the Expo and spent relatively little in the shops. One reason may have been the excessively high entrance charges which, for a family of two adults and three children, could have been up to £100. There is little doubt that the high royalty payments demanded by the Expo authorities added to the problem by exerting upward pressure on prices in shops, restaurants and other concessions.

Mr. Steen: What concerns me is that £500,000-worth of British industry's money is locked up with the DTI or lost. What will the DTI do about that?

Mr. Leigh: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall come to that as quickly as I can, but it is important that I should set out the facts in order to put the matter straight.
It is hardly surprising that some concessions lost money. One could argue that a larger retail company might have coped better with the cash flow problem. The House should know that the many large retailers invited to tender all declined that opportunity.
Because of the unforeseen failure of the pavilion shop, DTI Ministers decided to make an ex gratia payment to those British suppliers who had made advanced royalty payments to the concessionaires. To help finance their own royalty payment to the DTI, the shop concessionaires had required an up-front royalty payment from their suppliers. Although there was no legal requirement to do so, the DTI made a without-prejudice ex gratia refund of those royalty payments to the suppliers.
A total of 15 separate ex gratia payments have been made to companies which supplied the pavilion shop. I am aware of only two companies which have expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of money that they received. Their disputes, however, involve wider issues and it would not be appropriate to discuss the detail of them in the House. I hope that that answers some of the questions that my hon. Friend asked about the concessionaires.
The total budget allocation from Government funds for the British participation at Expo was set at £28.9 million. The £1.2 million expenditure on the cultural programme was included in the overall cost. Private sector sponsorship, in cash and in kind, was valued at £5 million.
Expo '92 was staged in Seville to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the new world. It ran from 20 April to 12 October 1992, attracted more than 40 million visitors and 110 nations participated which, together with theme pavilions, corporate participation and the autonomous regions of Spain, collectively amounted to a larger number of pavilions than at any previous Expo. The theme was the "age of discovery" —

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.